Historical Jesus

[Dawnofhope]

"Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20 The Jews therefore said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body." (John 2:19-21)

This verse is indicating that the new focal point for the worship of God shall be through Christ. Consider the Olivet discourse (Matthew 24) and how Jesus prophesises the destruction of the Jewish temple. In referring to the abomination of desolation standing in the Holy place spoken by Daniel (Matthew 24:15-16, Daniel 9:24-27) He is referring to Himself. He is the fulfilment of this key prophecy where He atones for the sins of not only the Jewish people but for us all. Again in Revelation 21:22 we see that Christ has become the temple and there is no need for a physical temple with all its sacraments. The temple is the place of worship or the Church. In this day it can be our hearts turned towards Christ and His Holy teachings.

Another key verse where Christ refers to events around the 3 days after His death is Matthew 12:38-41. He speaks of the miracle of OT prophet Jonas in the belly of the whale. Jonas on this occasion is most likely analogous with His believers who argued amongst themselves, were hard to teach, and became anxious and fearful when Christ was arrested. After three days they emerged from the darkness in the belly of the whale, 'the tomb of disbelief', to become assured and teach the Cause of their Lord.

All these verses written by the apostles are filled with profound spiritual meaning. I believe they refer to the resurrection of His faithful believers and the church. While I can see many Christians interpret a physical bodily resurrection of Christ, the ascension of His physical body into the physical heavens is contrary to reason and science.

Thus I conclude my response and counter argument. I look forward to any other evidence you provide that would support a physical resurrection. Thank you for taking the time to discuss one of the most important Christian teachings.

 

[1robin]

I'm pleased you have had a positive experience in you discussions with Baha'is and hope that our discussions will be courteous and respectful, regardless of our perspectives.

I like that you have set out a framework to consider what conservative Christians would argue is known about Jesus. I would argue that Baha'is believe in the same God, Jesus, and Bible as the Christians. Clearly we have some differences in regards to what some Christians would hold to be core beliefs. As this thread is about the historic Jesus then I feel its best to remain within that framework. So a good starting point is the framework you as a Christian have laid out as to your personal understanding about who Christ is. I agree your beliefs are shared by many Christians.

A broader assessment of the Baha'i Faith doesn't really belong on this thread but I'm happy to discuss it on another thread if you want.

We would have to go through each (about Christ) belief one by one to see which Baha'i beliefs about Christ I would agree with or disagree with. However that would take forever. So instead I will simply evaluate the ones that appear in our posts. I will not commit to debating you about the Baha'i faith in general, unless you request my doing so.

 

[1robin]

All good. Lets investigate, discuss and debate the resurrection of Jesus the Christ.

Sounds good.

What matters is that through the Teachings of Jesus we too can be resurrected. You have affirmed this although we understand it differently. We can have spiritual life and not be spiritually dead. Through Christ the church was raised to new life.

1. As I understand it and have experienced it, through Christ's teachings we learn how God can save us. We then either allow him to save us (through the experience referred to as born again, or born from above), or reject his offer. Salvation (Heaven) cannot be earned or merited, it is an undeserved gift we must simply accept or reject.
2. I agree with you statement about spiritual life and death but believe we understand those terms differently.
3. Christ brought the church into existence, he did not take a broken Church and fix it. The church is the body of believers in him that have been born again. This came to be after he died and was resurrected.

Many Christians believe the resurrection is proof of Jesus' Divinity because only God has power over death. The Baha'i perspective, though different, also provides proof of Jesus sovereignty over death, in particular the death of the soul. Jesus' spiritual effect on the lives of His followers and the establishment of the Church demonstrates the power of His love and affirms the claims of His sovereignty. HIs Glorious Being and his Divine Perfections prove that He is a 'Manifestation' of God.

Are you limiting him to these things?

Is he still dead?
Is he merely existing vicariously through his message?
Did he spiritually die as well as physically die?

The physical resurrection is not necessary to prove Jesus' Divinity or Power to impart eternal life. Other world religions believe that God is All-Powerful including the power to provide eternal life. Why would God who is All-loving, All merciful, All-powerful, and omnipotent limit Himself to just one religion and prevent the salvation of so many?

Let me ask you a different question. Let's a God hid fragments of divine revelations within mountains of man made garbage. He gave some bits to one group 5000 years ago, some other bits to another group 2000 years ago, and more stuff to groups a hundred years ago. This God also knew that at least the man made mountains that his truth became buried within contradicted each other.

Or

Another God existed. This God gave a pure revelation in one set of books, and has preserved it so well that it is at least 95% textually accurate today. This God also gave his core message at the perfect time and place so that what occurred in a tiny Roman backwater has resulted in the largest religion in human history and is the only religion present in significant numbers in every nation on earth.

Which one of those God's soundly the Godliest?

The true meaning of the resurrection?

I originally mentioned the "nature" of the resurrection not the "meaning" of it but I will roll with it anyway. Nature is an ontological issue, while meaning is an epistemological issue.

Jesus came from heaven:
John 3:13, John 6:38, John 6:41-2

The risen body of Christ is the Church:
Roman 12:5 'one body in Christ'
1 Corinthians 12:12-13 'baptised into one body'
1 Corinthians 12:25 'no schism in the body'
1 Corinthians 12:27 'you are the body of Christ'
Colossians 1:18 'He is the head of the body'
Ephesians 2:5-6 'members of His body, and His flesh'

I agree that believers who are born again compose the body of Christ, which is called the church. However, none of that suggests Christ didn't physically rise from the dead.

The spiritual resurrection:
1 Corinthians 15:42-4 'it is raised in a spiritual body'
1 Corinthians 15:50 'flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom'

Notice it says spiritual BODY. God is spirit, he has no body. We are not God, we both do and will have a body. Our new spiritual body will be a perfect body. Since it seems we are having an intramural debate, and it will come down to my interpretation of certain versus against your interpretation, the only recourse is reason and scholarship. As for your second verse I will start with the most accepted scholar on biblical commentary in the history of mankind.

The bodies of the dead, when they rise, will be fitted for the heavenly bodies. The bodies of the dead, when they rise, will be fitted for the heavenly state; and there will be a variety of glories among them. Burying the dead, is like committing seed to the earth, that it may spring out of it again. Nothing is more loathsome than a dead body. But believers shall at the resurrection have bodies, made fit to be for ever united with spirits made perfect.
Mathew Henry
1 Corinthians 15:50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

The apostles were guided by God's unerring spirit.

Agreed, the same who said they physically spoke with him after he died.

They were not lying.

Agreed, the same who said he physically died on the cross.

Lets consider Christ's manner of speech throughout His ministry. (John 3:3) (John 6:53). When the apostles spoke of Christ as being risen they spoke as Christ spoke.
Mathew 13:10-17
"And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

Christ definitely spoke in parables, analogies, and in apocalyptic language use. My computer is screwing up, after I post this I will reboot and perhaps be better equipped to give more in depth responses. Keep in mind that after thousands of years studying the most scrutinized book in history (the bible) there have been developed reliable exegetical methods that must be taken into account to separate literals from analogy.

There are of course much more plausible explanations for what happened to Jesus' body other than a physical resurrection.

Non-theists have beat their heads bloody for 2000 years in the attempt, and IMO they have not made a dent. You must post an example, merely claiming they exist is not an argument.

However most religionists, myself included do not see heaven as a literal place up in the sky. Do you?

According to the bible heaven is currently being "assembled" (for lack of a better word) somewhere. Skipping all the intermediary stuff and if I have my eschatology right, God will call an end to everything at some point, he will burn the surface of the Earth to cinders and a new perfect Earth will return (it will be on a massive scale what Eden was in miniature. The heaven that is now finished will descend to earth and replace Jerusalem as a kind of capitol. Heaven will be the entire Earth. Hell will be thrown into the lake of fire and annihilated along with it's contents. So Jesus' ascension seems logical to me.

It should also be noted in scripture that flesh can not inherit the Kingdom of heaven. 1 Corinthians 15:50, John 3:3

I dealt with 15:50 above. I use John 3 all the time. I see most of the verses you have cited here used to show that salvation comes by grace, I have never seen them used to deny we will be given resurrected bodies.

There are other resurrection stories in the bible. It was a strong part of the mythology of Greco-Roman culture. Paul for example taught the gentiles and used the language and symbolism known to those people to convey the spiritual truths of the gospel of Christ.

I am going to confine myself to the bible, adding in Greek and Roman culture would mean I could spend little time of each claim. As for the bible it has resuscitations, but only one resurrection. If you go back to the original language you will find that all those raised died again, except for Jesus. Lazarus for example died again.

Through His Teachings we can have spiritual life makes more sense than Him enabling us to be physically resurrected too.

I can't see that either one makes any more sense than another. However the goal is to resolve what the bible teaches. Hell doesn't make sense to me but the bible teaches of Hell so I accept it. I believe the bible emphatically teaches bodily resurrection, even if that made no sense (but it does) I should accept it. BTW we both include spiritual resurrection, I just accept an added physical resurrection. There is no net disadvantage the mainstream view introduces.

There is no problem with accepting the crucifixion of Christ. It is a plausible story that requires nothing miraculous except the 'Son of Man' willing to die for a Cause in which He believes. So unlike the story of Christ's resurrection it is much easier to accept as both an historic fact and literal truth.

You just claimed what Paul said made the entire bible null and void.

New International Version
And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

It is as if God looked forward through the ages, and saw that there would be very civil people who's faith would require them to claim Christ did not die and was not physically resurrected, so he gave very explicit verses to indicate that is a false path. The above just being one of many.

There was much invested in having possession of Jesus' body for the Romans, Jews, and Christians. Sometimes we just don't know the answers in regards to matters where we were not present and happened so long ago.

All the evidence is on my side.

1. Evidence for a crucifixion done by masters of torture and death.
2. His death confirmed and his body placed in a well known tomb.
3. Guards posted and tomb sealed with a ten ton rock over which is placed an imperial seal.
4. Rock thrown a few yards away, guards had no explanation, his body missing.
5. His body reappearing to the disciples and enemies in physical form. Even the nail imprints and spear wound available for sight and touch.
6. Witnesses claim him immaculate and the assumption.
7. He was never seen again, the eyewitnesses lost everything without ever failing to defend the above events.

Once you have responded I am happy to consider what I believe was really behind Luke and John's words.

In any proper biblical exegesis the literal is assumed and applied unless it can't be applied. It can be applied in the case of the verses I give so if it isn't applied you must present exquisite reasons for considering it an analogy.

These are very important verses but I will argue later they refer to another very important teaching of Christ.

Please see the above.

 

[1robin]

It is easy to believe, with verses like these, that Jesus really did appear to many witnesses. There is Jesus' appearance to a multitude of 500 believers (1 Corinthians 15:6), the appearance to the Emmaus disciples (Luke 24:13-33), to the women returning to the tomb (Matthew 28:9-10), to Stephen (Acts 7:55), and to John on Patmos (Revelations 1:10-19).

Some of those are meeting with a newly risen Christ and others are visions I am not sure what it is your saying. Since it is consistent with my argument that Jesus physically appeared to people after his death, it appears your making my argument for me.

All the witnesses are believers however, and none of the verses conclusively indicate the appearance of Christ should be understood literally as the resurrection of His physical body. Are they witnesses to the appearance of the physically resurrected Jesus or the reawakening of the Church ('He is the head of the body, the Church' Colossians 1:18)? There are no outside accounts from non-believers who saw a resurrected body that they identified as Jesus. There is no account when viewed symbolically, that does not suggest spiritual significance.

That is like crying foul because only the non-bachelors are married or that we only have round circles. It is a little bizarre to suggest only those who have never been to the north pole can establish what the temperature there feels like. It depends on what event is under discussion who the witnesses include. Regardless they were not all friend of the faith. Paul was a mortal enemy, he killed Christ's disciples until he converted. It is a miracle we have any detailed accounts for events like these from that long ago. As I have said the bible is better preserved than any text from ancient history by far. The bible suggests (and a few are even known of) that there were many accounts about those events but we only have what survived (but compared to any similar text we are swimming in documentation. Everything that survived and everyone who was there say that Jesus died and physically rose again, there simply are no competing claims from other documentation. You can't find a single claim of "I was there and that didn't happen".

Paul says the resurrected Christ appeared to him last (1 Corinthians 15:7-9). However the accounts of the appearance of Christ to Paul recorded in Acts (Chapters 9, 22, and 26) strongly suggest descriptions of a vision. In one instance while in a trance praying, Paul describes hearing Christ (Acts 22:17-21). The most significant appearance to Paul is on the road to Damascus ((Acts 9:4, Acts 22:7, Acts 26:12). Christ asks Paul 'why are you persecuting me?'. However we know that Christ has been crucified, rather His followers are persecuted. Why does the risen Christ say to Paul 'why are you persecuting Me?' if the risen Christ is not the living Church? Of course it is Paul who continually refers to the living body of Christ with the Church.

Your confusing events. Paul had an encounter with the risen Christ and he had visions.

1. Christ became the risen Christ in his tomb.
2. Those who believe in his resurrection are not called risen Christ's they are called his body, or more commonly the Church. It is a body of people who all share a born again experience.

If you want to be a little technical about it Christ is called the groom, and the church is called the bride. They make up a whole the same way a man and a women become one flesh when they are married. An attack on one is an attack on the other. That is why an attack on Christians is an attack on Christ.

The wife is not the husband and the husband is not the wife. Christ is not the church and the church is not the Christ. However is not an attack on one an attack upon the other?

 

[1robin]

This verse is indicating that the new focal point for the worship of God shall be through Christ. Consider the Olivet discourse (Matthew 24) and how Jesus prophesises the destruction of the Jewish temple. In referring to the abomination of desolation standing in the Holy place spoken by Daniel (Matthew 24:15-16, Daniel 9:24-27) He is referring to Himself. He is the fulfilment of this key prophecy where He atones for the sins of not only the Jewish people but for us all. Again in Revelation 21:22 we see that Christ has become the temple and there is no need for a physical temple with all its sacraments. The temple is the place of worship or the Church. In this day it can be our hearts turned towards Christ and His Holy teachings.

I have never heard anything I considered reliable concerning the "abomination of desolation", but the temple was not destroyed until 70AD so connecting it with the 3 days Christ mentioned is impossible. He first mentions the destruction of something, then the reconstruction the thing that was previously destroyed 3 days later. You ought to come on over to my side, you won't need to torture verses and prophecies until they no longer resemble anything rational. I could never be a Baha'i or a Muslim, it seems to exhausting.

Also, Christ did not replace the physical temple or at least that was not the primary things he replaced. The Temple didn't come down when he died however the veil which separated man from God did. He also replaced the sacrifices of animals which the bible said could only push the debt of sin forward, until he rose from death. In fact he replaced the high priest, the veil, and animal sacrifices, but I have never heard him replacing the temple. Maybe, but that isn't what he was talking about John 2, and if it is what he is talking about in Rev 21:22 how do you know it has already happened? I think John was describing a vision that will come true in the future.

Another key verse where Christ refers to events around the 3 days after His death is Matthew 12:38-41. He speaks of the miracle of OT prophet Jonas in the belly of the whale. Jonas on this occasion is most likely analogous with His believers who argued amongst themselves, were hard to teach, and became anxious and fearful when Christ was arrested. After three days they emerged from the darkness in the belly of the whale, 'the tomb of disbelief', to become assured and teach the Cause of their Lord.

I do not agree with that interpretation of the sign of Jonah, but the differences are not significant. However what is significant is the best explanation. Which one of the following is the best conclusion?

1. A group of guys who had slunk away as fast as possible the second anyone mentioned their connection with Christ, for some unimaginable reason all become roaring lions in defense of their connection with Christ at the same time?

Or

2. That men who saw their leader be killed and sealed in a tomb naturally fearing for their lives, but gaining great confidence when exactly as predicted their leader showed back up walking and talking with them as he formerly had and just as he promised?

Or let me ask which one of the two seems the stronger and more sufficient motivation?

All these verses written by the apostles are filled with profound spiritual meaning. I believe they refer to the resurrection of His faithful believers and the church. While I can see many Christians interpret a physical bodily resurrection of Christ, the ascension of His physical body into the physical heavens is contrary to reason and science.

Miracles or the supernatural events are by their nature non-scientific. That's what makes them special. There is no hope in science, according to science no one will live eternally, the just and the unjust meet the same end, and the entire universe will decay until heat death occurs. Miraculous or supernatural events are called such because they transcend nature. If you believe in a God that is subject to natural law and not it's creator then you need to trade him in on a better one.

Thus I conclude my response and counter argument. I look forward to any other evidence you provide that would support a physical resurrection. Thank you for taking the time to discuss one of the most important Christian teachings.

Well, I will give you this. You are at least as civil as every other Baha'i I have ever debated, but your more knowledgeable than most.

 

[Dawnofhope]

We would have to go through each (about Christ) belief one by one to see which Baha'i beliefs about Christ I would agree with or disagree with. However that would take forever. So instead I will simply evaluate the ones that appear in our posts. I will not commit to debating you about the Baha'i faith in general, unless you request my doing so.

Thank you for your responses and willingness to debate and discuss the resurrection of Christ. As we continue the areas where we agree and disagree will become apparent.

We can always discuss the Baha'i Faith in general at a later stage.

What's most important to me is a courteous, reasoned discussion based on scripture. I'm happy to engage in such a discussion as it involves an exploration of a faith I love. It has been the faith of my ancestors for many generations. Although we are debating, winning or losing is not my main concern.

1. As I understand it and have experienced it, through Christ's teachings we learn how God can save us. We then either allow him to save us (through the experience referred to as born again, or born from above), or reject his offer. Salvation (Heaven) cannot be earned or merited, it is an undeserved gift we must simply accept or reject.

Salvation is a huge topic in its own right. Suffice it to say that unlike the authors of CARMs apologetics, a belief a physical resurrection is not necessary either for salvation or for proper Christian belief. However I agree that a belief in the resurrection is mandatory for both. We simply understand the resurrection differently.

2. I agree with you statement about spiritual life and death but believe we understand those terms differently.

That's good to have that level of agreement at least.

3. Christ brought the church into existence, he did not take a broken Church and fix it. The church is the body of believers in him that have been born again. This came to be after he died and was resurrected.

Perhaps it would be better to talk of the church being born rather than broken, and there was accompanying pain with that birth, and the baby needed resuscitation through the Holy Spirit. That process of revitalisation began several days after Christ's crucifixion and had greatly accelerated when the day of Pentecost came.

Are you limiting him to these things?

Is he still dead?
Is he merely existing vicariously through his message?
Did he spiritually die as well as physically die?

My argument of course is that He did die physically but He never died spiritually and His Holy Spirit certainly has animated His teachings and followers throughout the centuries. If we are honest the spiritual vitality of man's belief in God is dying out in every land, and this does not apply only to Christianity. This is important to recognise as Jesus taught we must be mindful of the times. Matthew 16:2-3

I have no doubt that God who is All-powerful can perform any miracle and bring someone back from the dead. However just because He can, does not mean that He has. The argument against a physical resurrection is essentially reconciling reason and science with Faith in God. Recall that for over a thousand years the church believed the earth was the centre of the universe. Galileo was placed under house arrest for declaring this heresy. How long it took for perspectives and ideologies to change. Did Galileo's belief in science contradict His Faith? It did not, but it certainly brought him into conflict with the church leaders and established Christian beliefs. There is a similar reconciliation that needs to happen with some of the stories in genesis such as a literal creation of the world in 7 days over 6,000 years ago.

The resurrection is another area where faith and science need to be reconciled. Accompanying the medieval view of the earth at the centre of the universe we had hell below the earth and heaven up in the sky. This just doesn't work for many people including many Christians anymore. So the real problem that Jesus ascended into heaven in the sky is it simply does not stand up to the critical analysis alongside the Ptolemaic model and creation happening literally as recorded in genesis.

The Baha'i belief in an eternal soul that progresses to the next world where states of heaven and hell exist as they do in this world is becoming increasingly accepted by many Christians.

Let me ask you a different question. Let's a God hid fragments of divine revelations within mountains of man made garbage. He gave some bits to one group 5000 years ago, some other bits to another group 2000 years ago, and more stuff to groups a hundred years ago. This God also knew that at least the man made mountains that his truth became buried within contradicted each other.

Or

Another God existed. This God gave a pure revelation in one set of books, and has preserved it so well that it is at least 95% textually accurate today. This God also gave his core message at the perfect time and place so that what occurred in a tiny Roman backwater has resulted in the largest religion in human history and is the only religion present in significant numbers in every nation on earth.

Which one of those God's soundly the Godliest?

I think we need to have a better understanding of how God works. We know that God revealed Himself through a series of great teachers starting from Noah, Abraham, Moses and Christ. Then there were all the minor and major prophets in the old testament not to mention the apostles after Christ ascension (spiritual).

So already we have God engaged with the Hebrew people extending back to the time of Adam 6,000 years ago. The non existence of writings of Abraham and Noah do not rule mean that God did not intervene through these men for the sake of His people.

It was through oral traditions that the first Pentateuch was maintained before it was written down well over 500 years after Moses passed on. While Christian scholarship is not an area I have spend much time considering it is clear that we have a great diversity of opinions about the authorship and authenticity of various biblical books.

The Quran is considered a Revelation of God, and although the numbers of Christians remains greater than Muslims according to Pew research that may well change by the end of this century.

As for Hinduism and Buddhism that like the teachings of Moses were passed down through oral traditions, we do have records but I agree we can not be certain as to what these great Spiritual Educators really taught.

The Baha'i revelation as the most recent Abrahamic Faith has no such problems and we can know with great confidence what Baha'u'llah really taught.

From the consideration of God's Love, mercy, and justice consigning people to hell because they don't believe as some Christians do makes little sense. We have everyone prior to Christ, all the peoples of the world who have never had the opportunity to hear about Christ, and then all the children not old enough to understand the Christian message should they die young. Should they all be consigned to hell? What type of God is this?

Amidst a multicultural world as I associate with peoples of different faiths I come to see the shining light of God in all peoples of all faiths. Do I sound like a Baha'i?

I agree that believers who are born again compose the body of Christ, which is called the church. However, none of that suggests Christ didn't physically rise from the dead.

True, but it does suggest another plausible explanation for the resurrection.

Notice it says spiritual BODY. God is spirit, he has no body. We are not God, we both do and will have a body. Our new spiritual body will be a perfect body. Since it seems we are having an intramural debate, and it will come down to my interpretation of certain versus against your interpretation

The important step is to recognise the potential validity of both interpretations.

the only recourse is reason and scholarship. As for your second verse I will start with the most accepted scholar on biblical commentary in the history of mankind.

The bodies of the dead, when they rise, will be fitted for the heavenly bodies. The bodies of the dead, when they rise, will be fitted for the heavenly state; and there will be a variety of glories among them. Burying the dead, is like committing seed to the earth, that it may spring out of it again. Nothing is more loathsome than a dead body. But believers shall at the resurrection have bodies, made fit to be for ever united with spirits made perfect.
Mathew Henry
1 Corinthians 15:50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

I can see that this scholars words resonate for you, but to me its taking a literal interpretation of a verse that clearly has other meanings.

Keep in mind that after thousands of years studying the most scrutinized book in history (the bible) there have been developed reliable exegetical methods that must be taken into account to separate literals from analogy.

The problems with this argument are
(1) The irreparable and intractable divisions amongst Christianity often based on this exegesis and;
(2) The Jews take this same approach to their scripture and do not see one verse of the Tanach relating to Christ!

More to follow soon

 

[Dawnofhope]

Non-theists have beat their heads bloody for 2000 years in the attempt, and IMO they have not made a dent. You must post an example, merely claiming they exist is not an argument.

The evidence in regards to the rise of science, the decline of those who consider themselves Christian in Western countries where Christianity was the strongest, and Christians who no longer believe in a physical resurrection suggests otherwise. Of course I am not a non-theist and am simply trying to better understand scripture based on new evidence, in particular science, world history, and comparative religion.

According to the bible heaven is currently being "assembled" (for lack of a better word) somewhere. Skipping all the intermediary stuff and if I have my eschatology right, God will call an end to everything at some point, he will burn the surface of the Earth to cinders and a new perfect Earth will return (it will be on a massive scale what Eden was in miniature. The heaven that is now finished will descend to earth and replace Jerusalem as a kind of capitol. Heaven will be the entire Earth. Hell will be thrown into the lake of fire and annihilated along with it's contents. So Jesus' ascension seems logical to me.

It would be helpful to closely study Matthew 24 where the end of the Jewish era with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple soon to occur along with the rise of Christianity, These parallel events/processes are accompanied by tribulations, floods and earthquakes. The apocalyptic language is unmistakeable and I would argue that it was the end of an era rather than the end of the world. This was a process over an extended period time although it did have a very significant event in 70 AD that sealed he deal. However Bar Kokhba's leadership of the Jewish revolt 132-135 AD was also significant. Christ soon shifts focus from talking of near events to very distant events with His second advent. The events and signs surrounding His return have similar apocalyptic language which is highly metaphorical and not to be taken literally IMHO. Perhaps the theme of Christ's return is of the greatest interest for us both. However suffice it to say that in regards to the return of Christ, the best NT example is John the Baptists being the return of Elijah.

John the Baptist was a spiritual, not physical incarnation of Elijah. Put another way Elijah does not physically return but the spirit of Elijah as John the Baptist does.

In Malachi 4:5-6, God announced that He would send “Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD.” In Luke 1:17, the angel Gabriel told Zacharias, John’s father, that John would fulfil Malachi 4:6, stating that he would go before the Lord “in the spirit and power of Elijah.” Jesus identified John as Elijah (Matthew 11:14;17:10-13; Mark 9:11-13). However, when asked by the priests and Levites if he were Elijah, John denied it (John 1:21)!

The significance is that John the Baptist had a similar role and purpose to Elijah with similar spiritual qualities. Likewise I would argue the returned Christ or Messiah is not the same physical Jesus. The wonders and signs accompanying His return were not too dissimilar to those that accompanied Jesus.

I dealt with 15:50 above. I use John 3 all the time. I see most of the verses you have cited here used to show that salvation comes by grace, I have never seen them used to deny we will be given resurrected bodies.

Isn't it refreshing to see scripture in a new light?

I can't see that either one makes any more sense than another. However the goal is to resolve what the bible teaches. Hell doesn't make sense to me but the bible teaches of Hell so I accept it. I believe the bible emphatically teaches bodily resurrection, even if that made no sense (but it does) I should accept it. BTW we both include spiritual resurrection, I just accept an added physical resurrection. There is no net disadvantage the mainstream view introduces.

Once again, I think its important to acknowledge we both believe in the resurrection. My argument like yours is based on scripture and reason to indicate that the bible does not teach a physical resurrection at all.

You just claimed what Paul said made the entire bible null and void.

New International Version
And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

It is as if God looked forward through the ages, and saw that there would be very civil people who's faith would require them to claim Christ did not die and was not physically resurrected, so he gave very explicit verses to indicate that is a false path. The above just being one of many.

Paul highlights the importance of the resurrection to Christian belief and we both agree on its importance. If through Christ's Teachings we can not be born again and find new spiritual life as Jesus demonstrated then why bother? However I will argue that Paul resurrection experience was simply hearing Christ's voice on the road to Damascus. There was no physical appearance and Paul did not see Christ. It also happened some years after the 40 days of other so call physical appearances of Christ. Paul in Corinthians 15:5-8 likens his experience (which clearly is a vision like mystical experience) to the so called resurrection experiences of the others during that 40 day period.

All the evidence is on my side.

1. Evidence for a crucifixion done by masters of torture and death.
2. His death confirmed and his body placed in a well known tomb.
3. Guards posted and tomb sealed with a ten ton rock over which is placed an imperial seal.
4. Rock thrown a few yards away, guards had no explanation, his body missing.
5. His body reappearing to the disciples and enemies in physical form. Even the nail imprints and spear wound available for sight and touch.
6. Witnesses claim him immaculate and the assumption.
7. He was never seen again, the eyewitnesses lost everything without ever failing to defend the above events.

We agree as to the crucifixion, a story in itself that has much allegory and reference to OT prophecy. As to the remaining 'events' recorded in the gospels, as compelling as they are if taken literally, can also be seen allegorically. Of the gospel writers, only John and Matthew according to conservative Christians would be considered eye witnesses to the ministry of Jesus, and then they were not witnesses to the presumed events surrounding the tomb, nor to His appearance to Thomas.

In any proper biblical exegesis the literal is assumed and applied unless it can't be applied. It can be applied in the case of the verses I give so if it isn't applied you must present exquisite reasons for considering it an analogy.

So we have a physical resurrection with an accompanying ascension through the stratosphere to a place called heaven in a location we can be reasonably confident is incorrect. We can no longer assume the literal and must look deeper.

More to follow

 

[Dawnofhope]

Some of those are meeting with a newly risen Christ and others are visions I am not sure what it is your saying. Since it is consistent with my argument that Jesus physically appeared to people after his death, it appears your making my argument for me.

Just putting all the facts on the table. We have stories in the gospels that provide contradictory and inconsistent accounts of the resurrected Jesus as he is experienced in such different ways in each account. I can appreciate how it may read like an historical narrative but the problems with this approach are too great to ignore. Isn't it a little odd that those intimately familiar with Jesus did not recognise Him at first? Then He seems to be like a spirit in one account, physically present in another, and appears in visions in other accounts. Why put your hand in someone's wound to see if they are real rather than hold their hand? Perhaps there is metaphor in this rather than historical fact?

That is like crying foul because only the non-bachelors are married or that we only have round circles. It is a little bizarre to suggest only those who have never been to the north pole can establish what the temperature there feels like. It depends on what event is under discussion who the witnesses include. Regardless they were not all friend of the faith. Paul was a mortal enemy, he killed Christ's disciples until he converted. It is a miracle we have any detailed accounts for events like these from that long ago. As I have said the bible is better preserved than any text from ancient history by far. The bible suggests (and a few are even known of) that there were many accounts about those events but we only have what survived (but compared to any similar text we are swimming in documentation. Everything that survived and everyone who was there say that Jesus died and physically rose again, there simply are no competing claims from other documentation. You can't find a single claim of "I was there and that didn't happen".

What I'm saying is that if Jesus really did appear physically as recorded it would have made the news. Perhaps Josephus would have recorded the event along with other miraculous signs. There is no documented evidence of a physical resurrection outside the accounts of the New testaments. So we have the experience of those who have been touched by the hand of God (Jesus) expressed in language, ideas, and symbols that would be comprehensible to the people of that time. When we consider Pauls massive contribution to the NT and how he taught the gentiles this becomes even more relevant.

Your confusing events. Paul had an encounter with the risen Christ and he had visions.

1. Christ became the risen Christ in his tomb.
2. Those who believe in his resurrection are not called risen Christ's they are called his body, or more commonly the Church. It is a body of people who all share a born again experience.

If you want to be a little technical about it Christ is called the groom, and the church is called the bride. They make up a whole the same way a man and a women become one flesh when they are married. An attack on one is an attack on the other. That is why an attack on Christians is an attack on Christ.

The wife is not the husband and the husband is not the wife. Christ is not the church and the church is not the Christ. However is not an attack on one an attack upon the other?

I'm simply connecting scripture in a different manner. I do agree with the symbolism of the bride and groom. However the Holy writings for the Baha'is can have multiple spiritual meanings.

I have never heard anything I considered reliable concerning the "abomination of desolation", but the temple was not destroyed until 70AD so connecting it with the 3 days Christ mentioned is impossible. He first mentions the destruction of something, then the reconstruction the thing that was previously destroyed 3 days later. You ought to come on over to my side, you won't need to torture verses and prophecies until they no longer resemble anything rational. I could never be a Baha'i or a Muslim, it seems to exhausting.

Also, Christ did not replace the physical temple or at least that was not the primary things he replaced. The Temple didn't come down when he died however the veil which separated man from God did. He also replaced the sacrifices of animals which the bible said could only push the debt of sin forward, until he rose from death. In fact he replaced the high priest, the veil, and animal sacrifices, but I have never heard him replacing the temple. Maybe, but that isn't what he was talking about John 2, and if it is what he is talking about in Rev 21:22 how do you know it has already happened? I think John was describing a vision that will come true in the future.

I would be happy to provide a commentary on Daniel 9:24-27 that Jesus refers to in His final Sermon on the Mount. In these few verses it relates to Jesus, the plight of the Jewish people and ultimate fulfilment with His return along with the redemption of the Jewish people. Incredible really that these 4 verses can say so much. It is also a key to understand much of the remaining apocalyptic scripture. Once you understand how 490 relates to Jesus then we can better understand the numbers 1260, , 1290, 1335, and 2300.

Of course the temple was destroyed in 70 AD but the truth remains that the focus of worship is no longer the Jewish temple and Jesus becomes the new focal point. Where else would the disciples receive their inspiration? Revelations indicates the temple as being the returned Christ. But the returned Christ is the Father, and the father and the son are one!

To be honest biblical scripture is clear to me. I understand it differently to many Christians. No its not exhausting.

I do not agree with that interpretation of the sign of Jonah, but the differences are not significant. However what is significant is the best explanation. Which one of the following is the best conclusion?

1. A group of guys who had slunk away as fast as possible the second anyone mentioned their connection with Christ, for some unimaginable reason all become roaring lions in defense of their connection with Christ at the same time?

Or

2. That men who saw their leader be killed and sealed in a tomb naturally fearing for their lives, but gaining great confidence when exactly as predicted their leader showed back up walking and talking with them as he formerly had and just as he promised?

Or let me ask which one of the two seems the stronger and more sufficient motivation?

He is an account of Pauls experience:

I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know— God knows. And I know that this man —whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell. (2 Corinthians 12:1-4)

This is the experience that moves hearts and motivates people to sacrifice their lives. Seeing a physically resurrected Christ will not change hearts anymore than seeing him heal and walk on water. Didn't Christ criticise this generation for their attachment to miracles?

Miracles or the supernatural events are by their nature non-scientific. That's what makes them special. There is no hope in science, according to science no one will live eternally, the just and the unjust meet the same end, and the entire universe will decay until heat death occurs. Miraculous or supernatural events are called such because they transcend nature. If you believe in a God that is subject to natural law and not it's creator then you need to trade him in on a better one.

I do believe we have covered this with the science/reason verses Faith discussion I posted earlier. It is probably the best place to end for if we interpret scripture literally then we have an event that makes little sense, even accounting for an All-powerful God. I believe it is unreasonable to insist on this as a condition of having Faith in Christ and my Faith does not require it. What appears for some Christians to be the greatest miracle, has become increasingly difficult to defend in an age of reason and science. I would feel troubled and conflicted having to defend this belief.

Well, I will give you this. You are at least as civil as every other Baha'i I have ever debated, but your more knowledgeable than most.

Thank you again for your willingness to discussion this essential Christian teaching.

 

[1robin]

Thank you for your responses and willingness to debate and discuss the resurrection of Christ. As we continue the areas where we agree and disagree will become apparent.

We can always discuss the Baha'i Faith in general at a later stage.

What's most important to me is a courteous, reasoned discussion based on scripture. I'm happy to engage in such a discussion as it involves an exploration of a faith I love. It has been the faith of my ancestors for many generations. Although we are debating, winning or losing is not my main concern.

Hello adrian. Sounds great, but keep in mind that debates take place on the common ground of scholarly argument and conclusion. Interpreting the bible has very well established and scrutinized rules which should either be adhered to, or the one who is denying those methods has the burden.

Salvation is a huge topic in its own right. Suffice it to say that unlike the authors of CARMs apologetics, a belief a physical resurrection is not necessary either for salvation or for proper Christian belief. However I agree that a belief in the resurrection is mandatory for both. We simply understand the resurrection differently.

Well I think the weight of scripture is on the side of bodily resurrection. For example:

New International Version
1. it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

If your world view was true then the words in bold should not be there, they are needlessly confusing, and superfluous. If you are right that verse should instead have stated.

2. it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spirit. If there is a natural body, there is also a spirit.

You need extraordinary evidence to persuade anyone to go against the apostles original words, and instead adopt version two (which isn't biblical).

That's good to have that level of agreement at least.

I believe all will be raised at the judgment. Those saved will be given a resurrection (spiritual body), and the unsaved will suffer a final irrevocable second death (spiritual separation from God).

Perhaps it would be better to talk of the church being born rather than broken, and there was accompanying pain with that birth, and the baby needed resuscitation through the Holy Spirit. That process of revitalisation began several days after Christ's crucifixion and had greatly accelerated when the day of Pentecost came.

You need one radical event to explain how all those that had fled when Christ was taken and crucified, all became fearless lions for the faith. I have one, Christ's physical resurrection. Your still in need of one.

My argument of course is that He did die physically but He never died spiritually and His Holy Spirit certainly has animated His teachings and followers throughout the centuries. If we are honest the spiritual vitality of man's belief in God is dying out in every land, and this does not apply only to Christianity. This is important to recognise as Jesus taught we must be mindful of the times. Matthew 16:2-3

The father, the son, and the holy spirit are 3 persons that compose one being. To be a person requires an entity has a distinct and independent will. Christ and the holy spirit are two different entities. That is why Christ said that unless he ascended the holy spirit could not come. We are not debating the trinity but I did want to establish the above.

I have no doubt that God who is All-powerful can perform any miracle and bring someone back from the dead. However just because He can, does not mean that He has. The argument against a physical resurrection is essentially reconciling reason and science with Faith in God. Recall that for over a thousand years the church believed the earth was the centre of the universe. Galileo was placed under house arrest for declaring this heresy. How long it took for perspectives and ideologies to change. Did Galileo's belief in science contradict His Faith? It did not, but it certainly brought him into conflict with the church leaders and established Christian beliefs. There is a similar reconciliation that needs to happen with some of the stories in genesis such as a literal creation of the world in 7 days over 6,000 years ago.

From my perspective it seems your having to contort verses, ignore verses, and contradict mainstream interpretations in the attempt to prevent Christ from having risen bodily. The thing that is confusing to me is what your motivation is. I do not see what your gaining be putting in so much effort. The thing it is with most Baha'i is they need all faiths to be consistent with each other and to do so they must change them all. However I don't want to assume that yet in your case.

The resurrection is another area where faith and science need to be reconciled. Accompanying the medieval view of the earth at the centre of the universe we had hell below the earth and heaven up in the sky. This just doesn't work for many people including many Christians anymore. So the real problem that Jesus ascended into heaven in the sky is it simply does not stand up to the critical analysis alongside the Ptolemaic model and creation happening literally as recorded in genesis.

I have a degree in mathematics which required a lot of physics. Ptolemy is world famous for getting his geocentric cosmology completely wrong. Let me just stop at this point, because I must be misunderstanding you.

The Baha'i belief in an eternal soul that progresses to the next world where states of heaven and hell exist as they do in this world is becoming increasingly accepted by many Christians.

I am doubtful of that, but even if it is true, most Christians have not read the whole bible. It would require an unjust God to implement eternal torture for a finite of sin. Also the OT only talks of Sheol (the abode of the dead), you only get hell and heaven explained in the NT. Heaven will eventually exist on a paradisiacal Earth, and Hel will be thrown into the lake of fire with all it's occupants and annihilated. I have a mountain of scriptures for this if requested.

I think we need to have a better understanding of how God works. We know that God revealed Himself through a series of great teachers starting from Noah, Abraham, Moses and Christ. Then there were all the minor and major prophets in the old testament not to mention the apostles after Christ ascension (spiritual).

I agree with this, and it was the position I have always held. However the bible warns us to test all claims against the bible for efficacy.

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

So already we have God engaged with the Hebrew people extending back to the time of Adam 6,000 years ago. The non existence of writings of Abraham and Noah do not rule mean that God did not intervene through these men for the sake of His people.

I agree. These were oral traditions later recorded by Moses.

It was through oral traditions that the first Pentateuch was maintained before it was written down well over 500 years after Moses passed on. While Christian scholarship is not an area I have spend much time considering it is clear that we have a great diversity of opinions about the authorship and authenticity of various biblical books.

The first 5 books are not monolithic. There is little that is true for all 5.

The Quran is considered a Revelation of God, and although the numbers of Christians remains greater than Muslims according to Pew research that may well change by the end of this century.

If so then why did God need to plagiarize from heretical Jewish teachings, pre-Mohammad fables, and allow Uthman to destroy all previous Quran's. The Quran gets math, history, genetics wrong and doesn't even get the trinity it condemns accurate. The bible says Christ died on the cross, the Quran says he didn't. By the law on non-contradiction both can't possibly be true, yet the Baha'i have to make them both true so out comes the scissors and glue.

As for Hinduism and Buddhism that like the teachings of Moses were passed down through oral traditions, we do have records but I agree we can not be certain as to what these great Spiritual Educators really taught.

The bible says good is the opposite of evil, Buddhism says they are the same thing, the Quran says some with be in paradise after death, Hinduism says we come back as cows or insects, the Mormon's claim we come back as God's. It is too much work forcing all that to fit together, I will leave you to it.

The Baha'i revelation as the most recent Abrahamic Faith has no such problems and we can know with great confidence what Baha'u'llah really taught.

He didn't rise from the dead, he didn't make 2500 prophecies that came true, for every follower he has we have hundreds.

From the consideration of God's Love, mercy, and justice consigning people to hell because they don't believe as some Christians do makes little sense. We have everyone prior to Christ, all the peoples of the world who have never had the opportunity to hear about Christ, and then all the children not old enough to understand the Christian message should they die young. Should they all be consigned to hell? What type of God is this?

God only holds people reasonable for what they do with the revelation they have been given. For most of us that only means accepting Christ's sacrifice, for the rest read Dr. Craig's the problem of the unevangelised.

Amidst a multicultural world as I associate with peoples of different faiths I come to see the shining light of God in all peoples of all faiths. Do I sound like a Baha'i?

Yep, I see God in human beings only occasionally (which makes perfect sense in a fallen world). You claim you see him in an entire race of species than in the 5,000 years of recorded history has only had 300 years without major wars. Where do you see God in Stalin's starving 20 millions Ukrainians to death, in the clouds of mustard gas which boiled the lining out of the lungs in the early 1900s, Rome's or Alexander's exterminations of the entire populations of large cities. If looking at us is to look upon God, then I do not want any.

True, but it does suggest another plausible explanation for the resurrection.

Resurrected means to be erected again. This implies the thing that was resurrected existed previously.

The important step is to recognise the potential validity of both interpretations.

The only merit a thing must have in order for it to be valid is that it can't be shown to be impossible. It may be that what you believe can't be shown to be impossible. I am not merely looking for things that are not impossible, I am looked for the best conclusion from the evidence.

I can see that this scholars words resonate for you, but to me its taking a literal interpretation of a verse that clearly has other meanings.

I used Mathew Henry not because I like him, but because he is the most accepted NT commentator in human history. He is the Isaac Newton or biblical interpretation, the Einstein of exegesis, the Max Plank of biblical hermeneutics. I have stated several times that over millennia well scrutinized exegetical mechanisms have been created to examine the bible. The most basic is that everything should be taken literal unless rationality would prevent that interpretation.

The problems with this argument are
(1) The irreparable and intractable divisions amongst Christianity often based on this exegesis and;
(2) The Jews take this same approach to their scripture and do not see one verse of the Tanach relating to Christ!

More to follow soon

The problems with your counterarguments are:

1. If people disagree about a conclusion (and they almost always do) it does not follow that neither are correct. All things being equal you would hold with the consensus view unless untenable. Neither does it follow that 49% believe it to be A, and 49% believe it to be B, therefore it must be X.
2. The last time there was a large vote about what nature the risen Christ had was the council of Nicaea. Every single bishop with the exception of 2 in the Roman empire agreed he was divine and composed of both body and spirit.
3. I take very seriously what the Jews interpret the OT to be, but we are talking about the NT. And where me and mainstream Judaism differ I can provide a mountain of scripture and evidence.

 

[1robin]

Just putting all the facts on the table. We have stories in the gospels that provide contradictory and inconsistent accounts of the resurrected Jesus as he is experienced in such different ways in each account. I can appreciate how it may read like an historical narrative but the problems with this approach are too great to ignore. Isn't it a little odd that those intimately familiar with Jesus did not recognise Him at first? Then He seems to be like a spirit in one account, physically present in another, and appears in visions in other accounts. Why put your hand in someone's wound to see if they are real rather than hold their hand? Perhaps there is metaphor in this rather than historical fact?

The bible is officially historical biographies', however to consider any of the accusations you made, I must consider one example at a time. Please post you first verse, story, or teaching and what it is your accusing it of.

What I'm saying is that if Jesus really did appear physically as recorded it would have made the news. Perhaps Josephus would have recorded the event along with other miraculous signs. There is no documented evidence of a physical resurrection outside the accounts of the New testaments. So we have the experience of those who have been touched by the hand of God (Jesus) expressed in language, ideas, and symbols that would be comprehensible to the people of that time. When we consider Pauls massive contribution to the NT and how he taught the gentiles this becomes even more relevant.

The biblical God is always exclusive, but so is truth. We may want drone cameras, DNA, and court transcripts but the bible said God sent Jesus in the fullness of time. If you look at a population curve for the last 100,000 years or so it was almost linear and rose very gently until about 2000 years ago. God sent Christ the moment a common language was spoken over much of civilization, the population literally exploded into an exponential curve, writing materials were at least accessible for many, an empire existed which linked most areas with good roads for the first time in history. 40 plus extra biblical authors recorded the explosion of a faith based on a physical resurrection for it's leader. At least 5 independent authors made extremely consistent claims about Christ. The dozens of Gallic wars combined with decades of Peloponnesian wars do not have as much documentary evidence as Christ. Where are you getting your standards, for the time period we have an embarrassment of riches.

I'm simply connecting scripture in a different manner. I do agree with the symbolism of the bride and groom. However the Holy writings for the Baha'is can have multiple spiritual meanings.

For the Baha'i there must be an infinitude of meanings, because the only way your teachings can survive is everyone's scriptures are endlessly malleable.

I would be happy to provide a commentary on Daniel 9:24-27 that Jesus refers to in His final Sermon on the Mount. In these few verses it relates to Jesus, the plight of the Jewish people and ultimate fulfilment with His return along with the redemption of the Jewish people. Incredible really that these 4 verses can say so much. It is also a key to understand much of the remaining apocalyptic scripture. Once you understand how 490 relates to Jesus then we can better understand the numbers 1260, , 1290, 1335, and 2300.

You can provide anything you wish, but you will have to pick someone well qualified to be persuasive.

Of course the temple was destroyed in 70 AD but the truth remains that the focus of worship is no longer the Jewish temple and Jesus becomes the new focal point. Where else would the disciples receive their inspiration? Revelations indicates the temple as being the returned Christ. But the returned Christ is the Father, and the father and the son are one!

The best possible experts on where the apostles got their new founded faith would be themselves. The said they got it from the risen Christ.

New International Version
And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

15:12-19 Having shown that Christ was risen, the apostle answers those who said there would be no resurrection. There had been no justification, or salvation, if Christ had not risen. And must not faith in Christ be vain, and of no use, if he is still among the dead? The proof of the resurrection of the body is the resurrection of our Lord. Even those who died in the faith, had perished in their sins, if Christ had not risen. All who believe in Christ, have hope in him, as a Redeemer; hope for redemption and salvation by him; but if there is no resurrection, or future recompence, their hope in him can only be as to this life. And they must be in a worse condition than the rest of mankind, especially at the time, and under the circumstances, in which the apostles wrote; for then Christians were hated and persecuted by all men. But it is not so; they, of all men, enjoy solid comforts amidst all their difficulties and trials, even in the times of the sharpest persecution.
1 Corinthians 15:14 Commentaries

To be honest biblical scripture is clear to me. I understand it differently to many Christians. No its not exhausting.

To get random shaped ice cubes to fit into the same pail requires the introduction of massive quantities of energy. I took it as a given you would understand Christianity different that Christians and Christ. The question is whether you are right, and the rest of us wrong?

He is an account of Pauls experience:

I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know— God knows. And I know that this man —whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell. (2 Corinthians 12:1-4)

This is the experience that moves hearts and motivates people to sacrifice their lives. Seeing a physically resurrected Christ will not change hearts anymore than seeing him heal and walk on water. Didn't Christ criticise this generation for their attachment to miracles?

This is not an explanation of Paul's conversion. He is not talking about himself, or Christ, he is not even talking about salvation.

Christ did not say they would not be given a miracle (and that was merely one group, at one place, at one time) he said they would only be given the greatest miracle God would ever perform. If you think a dead guys remaining dead is more convincing that a dead man eating, walking, and talking 3 days after he died I am at a loss for words.

I do believe we have covered this with the science/reason verses Faith discussion I posted earlier. It is probably the best place to end for if we interpret scripture literally then we have an event that makes little sense, even accounting for an All-powerful God. I believe it is unreasonable to insist on this as a condition of having Faith in Christ and my Faith does not require it. What appears for some Christians to be the greatest miracle, has become increasingly difficult to defend in an age of reason and science. I would feel troubled and conflicted having to defend this belief.

I hear all the time that science and faith are at odds, but in my experience I use science more than anything else to argue for God. If there is anything in science that is a defeater for my faith I wish someone would post it.

Thank you again for your willingness to discussion this essential Christian teaching.

No problem. Good to hear from you again.

 

[Repox]

The puzzling accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, his appearance, etc., may be explained with reference to who Jesus was. If Jesus was God, not the son of God, it would be expected for the body to have a spiritual appearance. And that appearance would be for the benefit of eyewitnesses. In the absence of God in the form of Jesus, God would be in heaven, which we don't see. I believe Jesus was not the son of God, so witnesses saw God in human form. Actually, it is all hypothetical, there is no son of God. NT gospels stories were made up to explain Jesus. I understand my opinion is not acceptable due to my disbelief. Nevertheless, I thought I'd get in my two cents.

I've seen a spirit, it has a translucent appearance with a shiny glow. It is otherworldly with no worldly material. If you see one, you will know it is not of this world.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thanks again for your response Robin.

keep in mind that debates take place on the common ground of scholarly argument and conclusion.

I think the common ground we have is acceptance of the authority and authenticity of biblical scripture, the capacity for reasoned argument, and the ability to behave respectfully and courteously to others. That's actually a very strong starting point for us both.

I am happy for you to quote a particular scholar but I do not recognise scholars as having anymore or less authority than you or I. I value the time they have spent in researching and studying but they are just men like ourselves. The bible confers no special authority upon them.

Interpreting the bible has very well established and scrutinized rules which should either be adhered to, or the one who is denying those methods has the burden.

The rules are clear.

Interpretations need to be internally and externally consistent. That is we need to avoid contradictions and inconsistencies within the bible. We need to consider the context of scripture. We need to consider other scripture that may support or discount our interpretation. Interpretations need to be reasonable as opposed to irrational. They also need to be consistent with the world we live in. To me that involves taking into account science, world history and comparative religion. I have already spoken of this.

I've already spoken of massive infighting that goes on between biblical scholars. Then there are the leaders of religion that take one side or the other. Christianity may look good to you but it doesn't look too pretty as far as I can see.

Well I think the weight of scripture is on the side of bodily resurrection. For example:

New International Version
1. it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

If your world view was true then the words in bold should not be there, they are needlessly confusing, and superfluous. If you are right that verse should instead have stated.

2. it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spirit. If there is a natural body, there is also a spirit.

You need extraordinary evidence to persuade anyone to go against the apostles original words, and instead adopt version two (which isn't biblical).

1 Corinthians 15 is a key chapter for discussions about the resurrection that few will deny. I've read it, reread it, and Paul is simply taking about the eternal soul contrasted with the physical body and the power of Jesus' Teaching to impart new spiritual life. The Jews were not clear about the afterlife and their exposure to ideas from the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, then Romans are most likely in the mix. Of particular importance would be Greco-Roman culture and their ideas of the afterlife. Ancient Corinth, the locality of the Church that was the recipient of Paul's letter was a Greek city after all.

Clearly I'm not going against any of the apostles but highlighting the obvious use of metaphor to convey spiritual meanings on a topic of profound importance in regards the afterlife. Once again Paul uses language, concepts, and symbolism that is comprehensible to his audience. As Paul was such a spiritual giant (metaphorically speaking) having written 13 or 14 of the NT books, his manner of communication probably influenced the gospel writers.

I believe all will be raised at the judgment. Those saved will be given a resurrection (spiritual body), and the unsaved will suffer a final irrevocable second death (spiritual separation from God).

How about we all have a soul that continues beyond this physical realm after physical death. We are then judged by God and our souls progress through the worlds of God beyond. That seems simple enough. Progress depends on both faith and deeds.

You need one radical event to explain how all those that had fled when Christ was taken and crucified, all became fearless lions for the faith. I have one, Christ's physical resurrection. Your still in need of one.

How about a new spiritual capacity was infused into the entire creation as Christ was sacrificed on the cross. That could do it. Recall the words of the prophet Joel quoted in regards to Pentecost.

"For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams"
Acts 2:15-17

The father, the son, and the holy spirit are 3 persons that compose one being. To be a person requires an entity has a distinct and independent will. Christ and the holy spirit are two different entities. That is why Christ said that unless he ascended the holy spirit could not come. We are not debating the trinity but I did want to establish the above.

Of course Christ never taught about the Trinity. This is a man made doctrine to attempt to understand the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. One way of considering the concepts are the use of a mirror to reflects the perfect image of the sun. The Sun is like the Father, The Mirror is Jesus perfectly reflecting the Divine perfections and attributes, and the rays of sunlight like the Holy Spirit. In reality there is interplay between these three entities where they can be One and separate. My main concern about the Trinity is that God is One, not three and this doctrine starts to head down the road of polytheism.

From my perspective it seems your having to contort verses, ignore verses, and contradict mainstream interpretations in the attempt to prevent Christ from having risen bodily. The thing that is confusing to me is what your motivation is. I do not see what your gaining be putting in so much effort. The thing it is with most Baha'i is they need all faiths to be consistent with each other and to do so they must change them all. However I don't want to assume that yet in your case.

I reject that I am contorting verses. I'm simply looking at them differently to you and this seems strange. There are no verses I'm ignoring. My concern is with truth, not whether a belief is mainstream. Unfortunately a physical resurrection has became enshrined in the Nicene creed and for centuries it was impossible to challenge due to accusations of heresy.

Consider the parable of the tares Matthew 13:24-30. These tares planted along with the wheat need to be bundled up and placed in the fire where they belong. They are no longer needed and are contributing to significant misunderstanding about God's purpose for humanity. As Jesus said, the truth shall set you free.

The concept of the physical resurrection has become a barrier for good and reasonable people to understand religion

I have a degree in mathematics which required a lot of physics. Ptolemy is world famous for getting his geocentric cosmology completely wrong. Let me just stop at this point, because I must be misunderstanding you.

The point is that Christianity had a cosmology for over a thousand years that was clearly wrong. The problem is that theology was intimately linked to theology, for example with locations assigned for heaven and hell. That of course links into the physical resurrection.

I am doubtful of that, but even if it is true, most Christians have not read the whole bible. It would require an unjust God to implement eternal torture for a finite of sin. Also the OT only talks of Sheol (the abode of the dead), you only get hell and heaven explained in the NT. Heaven will eventually exist on a paradisiacal Earth, and Hel will be thrown into the lake of fire with all it's occupants and annihilated. I have a mountain of scriptures for this if requested.

This is an important point and explains Pauls emphasis in 1 Corinthians 15 to assist the gentiles to better understand the nature of the eternal soul and the role the Word of God (Jesus in this case) plays. We know that God's revelation sheds insight into the nature of the soul and its relationship with God. There is a significant advance via what God has revealed through Christ, compared to that of Moses. The Mosaic covenant has laid the foundation for the Christian one. It is not so much that the spiritual realm has been reordered with Christ, but our understanding of it has progressed.

I agree with this, and it was the position I have always held. However the bible warns us to test all claims against the bible for efficacy.

Once again we're agreed about the central importance of biblical scripture.

More to follow

 

[Katzpur]

The bible says good is the opposite of evil, Buddhism says they are the same thing, the Quran says some with be in paradise after death, Hinduism says we come back as cows or insects, the Mormon's claim we come back as God's.

I don't know whether to accuse you of intentionally misrepresenting Mormon doctrine or just chalk it up to ignorance, but Mormons do not claim that "we come back as God's (sic)."

 

[1robin]

I don't know whether to accuse you of intentionally misrepresenting Mormon doctrine or just chalk it up to ignorance, but Mormons do not claim that "we come back as God's (sic)."

I have been to the temple in Salt lake city but I make no claim to scholarship regarding the LDS and despite reading the book of Mormon I make no claim of being an expert. So lets see what Mormons say about their faith.

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, ...Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; ...and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, ...and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.

22 For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me.

ALL EXALTED MEN BECOME GODS. To believe that Adam is a god should not be strange to any person who accepts the Bible.
Joseph Smith taught a plurality of gods, and that man by obeying the commandments of God and keeping the whole law will eventually reach the power and exaltation by which he also will become a god.
Mormons Hope to Become Gods of Their Own Worlds

"Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, p. 346, Deseret Book, 2006.See also, the first edition of the official History of the Church, vol. VI, ch. XIII, pp. 300-307, published by Deseret News, 1912.)
Becoming Like God - Response to LDS.org

GOD IS INCREASING IN KNOWLEDGE. If there was a point where man in his progression could not proceed any further, the very idea would throw a gloom over every intelligent and reflecting mind. God Himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end.

The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, 3

"All those who are counted worthy to be exalted and to become Gods, even the sons of God, will go forth and have earths and worlds like those who framed this and millions on millions of others

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 18:259, October 8, 1876
"Mormons get their own planet" | Recovery from Mormonism

Looks like I am on pretty firm ground here, you might want to recalibrate.

 

[Katzpur]

I have been to the temple in Salt lake city but I make no claim to scholarship regarding the LDS and despite reading the book of Mormon I make no claim of being an expert.

You have been "to the temple in Salt Lake City." Okay, so you did a walk-by. So do 3 to 5 million other people a year. Whoop dee doo.

So lets see what Mormons say about their faith.

While we're at it, why don't we focus on what the anti-Mormons and the disgruntled ex-Mormons have to say. That will be a lot more fun that looking at what actual believing Mormons have to say, won't it?

Let's start with this quote from something or other that's Mormon, but let's not say which book it actually comes from. I'll take your word for it. Verses 19-22 of some book or other say this...

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, ...Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; ...and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, ...and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.

22 For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me.

And now let's move on to some supposed quotes frtom some non-canoncial sources and to their interpretation by career anti-Mormons, Sandra Tanner and others.

ALL EXALTED MEN BECOME GODS

. To believe that Adam is a god should not be strange to any person who accepts the Bible.
Joseph Smith taught a plurality of gods, and that man by obeying the commandments of God and keeping the whole law will eventually reach the power and exaltation by which he also will become a god.
Mormons Hope to Become Gods of Their Own Worlds

"Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, p. 346, Deseret Book, 2006.See also, the first edition of the official History of the Church, vol. VI, ch. XIII, pp. 300-307, published by Deseret News, 1912.)
Becoming Like God - Response to LDS.org

GOD IS INCREASING IN KNOWLEDGE. If there was a point where man in his progression could not proceed any further, the very idea would throw a gloom over every intelligent and reflecting mind. God Himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end.

The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, 3

"All those who are counted worthy to be exalted and to become Gods, even the sons of God, will go forth and have earths and worlds like those who framed this and millions on millions of others

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 18:259, October 8, 1876
"Mormons get their own planet" | Recovery from Mormonism

Looks like I am on pretty firm ground here, you might want to recalibrate.

If you're on firm ground, Robin, I'm the Virgin Mary.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... Some people (apparently you included) are going to insist that every book ever written by any Mormon, ex-Mormon, or career anti-Mormon is an accurate representation of Mormon doctrine. If you actually believe what Sandra Tanner, for example, has to say about Mormon doctrine, I have a nice bridge I'd like to sell you! Why don't you try, just for once, sticking with what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints actually says is its doctrine? You've visited Temple Square. Have you ever bothered visiting one of the LDS Church's official websites? I doubt it very much. Your choice of websites says a lot about your motives. If you truly wanted to get your facts straight, you'd at least make an effort to use reliable sources.

When I said that Mormons don't claim that "we come back as God's (sic)," I was referring to your post #130, in which you accused us of believing precisely that. You preceded that remark by stating that "Hinduism says we come back as cows or insects." First off, Hindus believe in reincarnation. Mormons do not. We don't believe we "come back" at all. So, you're wrong right off the bat. Second, there is only one God, and that one God already exists. We do not believe that we could possibly become Him. Thirdly, if you want to appear to be at all credible, you really ought to learn the basic rules of English capitalization and punctuation. Because of your capitalization and punctuation errors, your statement didn't even make sense (although I was able to wager a guess at what you probably meant to say.)

Jesus Christ is recorded as having said to His disciples, "Be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect." That was not a suggestion; it was a commandment. I don't know about you, but Mormons don't believe He would have given us a commandment that was impossible for us to keep. We don't claim that "we come back as God's (sic)," but we do believe each of us (and that includes you) has been given the potential to become like our Father in Heaven, exactly as Jesus Christ commanded that we do. Not that anything I or any other Latter-day Saint tells you will make the slightest bit of difference in what you choose to believe about us, but here's what we really do believe...

First off, let's clear up three big, big misconceptions:

(1) We do not believe that any of us will ever be equal to God, our Eternal Father in Heaven. He will always be our God and we will always worship Him.

(2) Nothing we could possibly do on our own could exalt us to the level of deity. It is only through the will and grace of God that man is given this potential. And "with God, nothing is impossible."

(3) Exaltation is not some kind of an automatic thing, and it doesn't take place immediately after death. It's a process that will likely take many millennia. It's not granted solely to Mormons by any means, but is a gift God has offered to all mankind, regardless of the religion one affiliates with during his or her mortality.

Throughout the New Testament, there are indications that this doctrine (known as deification or exaltation) is not one the Latter-day Saints invented, but that the earliest Christians understood and believed it, as well. Romans 8:16-17, 2 Peter 1:4, Revelation 2:26-27 and Revelation 3:21 are the four I like best. Through these verses, we learn that, as children of God, we may also be His heirs, joint-heirs with Christ, even glorified with Him. We might partake of the nature of divinity and be allowed to sit with our Savior on His throne, to rule over the nations.

Now, if these promises are true (as I believe they are), what do they all boil down to? To the Latter-day Saints, they mean that we have the potential to someday, be “godlike.” One of our prophets explained that "we are gods in embryo." If our Father is divine and we are literally his "offspring", as the Bible teaches we are, is it really such a stretch of the imagination to believe that he has endowed each of us with a spark of divinity?

Finally, there is considerable evidence that the doctrine of deification was taught for quite some time after the Savior’s death, and accepted as orthodox. Some of the most well-known and respected of the early Christian Fathers made statements that were remarkably close to the statements LDS leaders have made. For example:

In the second century, Saint Irenaeus said, “If the Word became a man, it was so men may become gods.” He also posed this question: “Do we cast blame on Him (God) because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as Gods?” At about the same period of time, Saint Clement made this statement: “The Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.” And Saint Justin Martyr agreed, saying that men are “deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest.” Some two centuries later, Athanasius explained that “the Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods. He became man that we might be made divine.” And, finally, Augustine, said, “But He that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. For he has given them power to become the sons of God. If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.”

Even the noted Christian theologian, C.S. Lewis, said much the same thing in his book "Mere Christianity."

“The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said."

Finally, according to The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology, “Deification (Greek theosis) is for Orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, according to the Bible, is made in the image and likeness of God…. It is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become god by grace.”

So, the "Mormons" really didn't come up with this doctrine. We only restored that which had been lost for many, many years. You don't have to believe this. I'm not asking you to, and I don't expect you to. All I ask of you is that stick to telling us about what you believe, and let other people explain their own beliefs. You do nobody any favors by trying to step in with your pathetic attempts to paraphrase and explain Mormon doctrine. You wouldn't like it if I did that to you.

 

[Dawnofhope]

If so then why did God need to plagiarize from heretical Jewish teachings, pre-Mohammad fables, and allow Uthman to destroy all previous Quran's. The Quran gets math, history, genetics wrong and doesn't even get the trinity it condemns accurate. The bible says Christ died on the cross, the Quran says he didn't. By the law on non-contradiction both can't possibly be true, yet the Baha'i have to make them both true so out comes the scissors and glue.

Time for some more writing @1robin. The Holy Quran? Muhammad was positive about the Jews and Christians and urged His followers to respect these people. Sure, they deviated but how did Christians go with following their Messiah?

Muhammad united a disparate group of Arab herdsmen. Like Moses He taught them not to worship Idols and to worship the One True God. Amazing the similarities between the two Gods really. His people needed education about some of the great men of God that had come before who were of course prophets and men of the OT Jewish history. In regards to the Surah about Christ's crucifixion, its just another way of saying they didn't kill His spirit. The Muslims take it literally of course as the Christians take the resurrection literally. No scissors and glue required. Just a case of removing the log from our eyes so we can see clearly scripture as our Lord has instructed.

As a mathematician you like to play the numbers game so we have a religion with nearly 25% of the worlds population and the fastest growing religion in the world. If Pew research is true then the number of Muslims is set to exceed Christians by the end of this century.

You are welcome to show me specific parts of the Quran you take exception to you. I didn't grow up a Muslim though. I grew up a Christian.

The bible says good is the opposite of evil, Buddhism says they are the same thing, the Quran says some with be in paradise after death, Hinduism says we come back as cows or insects, the Mormon's claim we come back as God's. It is too much work forcing all that to fit together, I will leave you to it.

Once again we will need quotes. The problem with Buddhist and Hindu texts is that even their adherents are uncertain about their authenticity so probably not the most useful discussion for us. From a Baha'i perspective reincarnation is not to be literally understood. It sounds remarkably similar to the Christian concept of being born again. Yes, a symbolic interpretation again. I'm getting predictable.

He didn't rise from the dead, he didn't make 2500 prophecies that came true, for every follower he has we have hundreds.

Baha'u'llah's 'spiritual resurrection' had the same affect on His believers.

I agree that Jesus fulfilled prophecies from the OT but it is not nearly as clear as you make out. 2,500 maybe a little overkill, don't you think? Baha'u'llah fulfilled many prophecies too but we'll leave that for another time.

You may have more Christians than Baha'is now but how many did you have after 170 years? That would be a better comparison, don't you agree?

Yep, I see God in human beings only occasionally (which makes perfect sense in a fallen world). You claim you see him in an entire race of species than in the 5,000 years of recorded history has only had 300 years without major wars. Where do you see God in Stalin's starving 20 millions Ukrainians to death, in the clouds of mustard gas which boiled the lining out of the lungs in the early 1900s, Rome's or Alexander's exterminations of the entire populations of large cities. If looking at us is to look upon God, then I do not want any.

If we are having a debate I will need to call 'foul' as you have omitted any mention of the wars and atrocities committed by Christians. Your reading of history is conveniently selective.

Not quite what I meant by my personal friends and associate from different cultures. My faith encourages me to love, forgive, and see the good in people. I know your faith does as well. As with all the wars, sometimes its hard to remember Jesus core message to really love people, even when it comes to your enemies.

Do you agree that world peace is prophesised in the OT for example Isaiah?

The fallen world seems overly dark and pessimistic. However I agree evil exists like he absence of light. Communism is seen by Baha'is as one of the great evils of the 20th century. Had the Tsar Alexandra II heeded Baha'u'llah's admonitions in the 19th century communism would never have taken root.

Resurrected means to be erected again. This implies the thing that was resurrected existed previously.

That's right. Erected again....spiritually

The only merit a thing must have in order for it to be valid is that it can't be shown to be impossible. It may be that what you believe can't be shown to be impossible. I am not merely looking for things that are not impossible, I am looked for the best conclusion from the evidence.

What you believe appears to me so far off the realm of being possible, that it is essentially impossible. I can see how important it is for Christians including yourself to believe in a physical resurrection. I know I'm unlikely to change your mind as you are mine. However it needs to be appreciated that there is another way of looking at Christ's resurrection that is biblically based, and Christians should not fear being branded as heretics because they refuse to accept this. Too late for me though as I've gone off to the dark side with those Baha'is

I too am looking for the best conclusion from the evidence and hence a spiritual resurrection.

I used Mathew Henry not because I like him, but because he is the most accepted NT commentator in human history. He is the Isaac Newton or biblical interpretation, the Einstein of exegesis, the Max Plank of biblical hermeneutics. I have stated several times that over millennia well scrutinized exegetical mechanisms have been created to examine the bible. The most basic is that everything should be taken literal unless rationality would prevent that interpretation.

As previously stated I do not recognise bible scholars as having anymore, or any less authority than you and I. If we are truly concerned with science and evidence then we see that often long established models need to be challenged and sometimes thrown out. Einstein's theory of relativity surpassed Newtonian physics with its accompanying world that ran like clockwork. The Baha'i have a new theological worldview that sees the NT in a different light as Jesus cast new light on the OT.

The problems with your counterarguments are:

1. If people disagree about a conclusion (and they almost always do) it does not follow that neither are correct. All things being equal you would hold with the consensus view unless untenable. Neither does it follow that 49% believe it to be A, and 49% believe it to be B, therefore it must be X.

I don't think a consensus of the popular vote would go in your favour if we included all the worlds population. The sample is biased in that you choose only people who think as you do, and then when they don't they are cast out as non believers and unfaithful.

2. The last time there was a large vote about what nature the risen Christ had was the council of Nicaea. Every single bishop with the exception of 2 in the Roman empire agreed he was divine and composed of both body and spirit.

Same problem as above.

3. I take very seriously what the Jews interpret the OT to be, but we are talking about the NT. And where me and mainstream Judaism differ I can provide a mountain of scripture and evidence.

Talk to the Jewish scholars and believe me, they will have a mountain of scripture called the OT to counter anything you say.

However I agree with the Christians that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah.

Isn't it nice to finish so positively

More to follow

 

[metis]

The problem with Buddhist and Hindu texts is that even their adherents are uncertain about their authenticity so probably not the most useful discussion for us.

If I can interject, I'm really not sure that this is really a "problem" as each does place personal experiences/observations, etc, over any kind of blind faith (I'm not accusing you of the latter, btw). As the Dalai Lama has said, if science goes against the scriptures, go with science as the scriptures were written at a time when we knew far less about a lot of things, plus they often contain superstition.

Now you can return back to your regularly scheduled program.

 

[1robin]

You have been "to the temple in Salt Lake City." Okay, so you did a walk-by. So do 3 to 5 million other people a year. Whoop dee doo.

I was just making a topic joke. I actually went all over it with the exception of where they wear the magic pajamas.

While we're at it, why don't we focus on what the anti-Mormons and the disgruntled ex-Mormons have to say. That will be a lot more fun that looking at what actual believing Mormons have to say, won't it?

Let's start with this quote from something or other that's Mormon, but let's not say which book it actually comes from. I'll take your word for it. Verses 19-22 of some book or other say this...



And now let's move on to some supposed quotes frtom some non-canoncial sources and to their interpretation by career anti-Mormons, Sandra Tanner and others.

If you're on firm ground, Robin, I'm the Virgin Mary.

Apparently I not only have to quote the book, and supply the links, but I see now I must click the link for you as well. I think everything you responded to above came from the same book. Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation. I thought the tenth president of the LDS church was relevant, if not then who is?

I've said it before and I'll say it again... Some people (apparently you included) are going to insist that every book ever written by any Mormon, ex-Mormon, or career anti-Mormon is an accurate representation of Mormon doctrine. If you actually believe what Sandra Tanner, for example, has to say about Mormon doctrine, I have a nice bridge I'd like to sell you! Why don't you try, just for once, sticking with what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints actually says is its doctrine? You've visited Temple Square. Have you ever bothered visiting one of the LDS Church's official websites? I doubt it very much. Your choice of websites says a lot about your motives. If you truly wanted to get your facts straight, you'd at least make an effort to use reliable sources.

When I said that Mormons don't claim that "we come back as God's (sic)," I was referring to your post #130, in which you accused us of believing precisely that. You preceded that remark by stating that "Hinduism says we come back as cows or insects." First off, Hindus believe in reincarnation. Mormons do not. We don't believe we "come back" at all. So, you're wrong right off the bat. Second, there is only one God, and that one God already exists. We do not believe that we could possibly become Him. Thirdly, if you want to appear to be at all credible, you really ought to learn the basic rules of English capitalization and punctuation. Because of your capitalization and punctuation errors, your statement didn't even make sense (although I was able to wager a guess at what you probably meant to say.)

Jesus Christ is recorded as having said to His disciples, "Be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect." That was not a suggestion; it was a commandment. I don't know about you, but Mormons don't believe He would have given us a commandment that was impossible for us to keep. We don't claim that "we come back as God's (sic)," but we do believe each of us (and that includes you) has been given the potential to become like our Father in Heaven, exactly as Jesus Christ commanded that we do. Not that anything I or any other Latter-day Saint tells you will make the slightest bit of difference in what you choose to believe about us, but here's what we really do believe...

First off, let's clear up three big, big misconceptions:

(1) We do not believe that any of us will ever be equal to God, our Eternal Father in Heaven. He will always be our God and we will always worship Him.

(2) Nothing we could possibly do on our own could exalt us to the level of deity. It is only through the will and grace of God that man is given this potential. And "with God, nothing is impossible."

(3) Exaltation is not some kind of an automatic thing, and it doesn't take place immediately after death. It's a process that will likely take many millennia. It's not granted solely to Mormons by any means, but is a gift God has offered to all mankind, regardless of the religion one affiliates with during his or her mortality.

Throughout the New Testament, there are indications that this doctrine (known as deification or exaltation) is not one the Latter-day Saints invented, but that the earliest Christians understood and believed it, as well. Romans 8:16-17, 2 Peter 1:4, Revelation 2:26-27 and Revelation 3:21 are the four I like best. Through these verses, we learn that, as children of God, we may also be His heirs, joint-heirs with Christ, even glorified with Him. We might partake of the nature of divinity and be allowed to sit with our Savior on His throne, to rule over the nations.

Now, if these promises are true (as I believe they are), what do they all boil down to? To the Latter-day Saints, they mean that we have the potential to someday, be “godlike.” One of our prophets explained that "we are gods in embryo." If our Father is divine and we are literally his "offspring", as the Bible teaches we are, is it really such a stretch of the imagination to believe that he has endowed each of us with a spark of divinity?

Finally, there is considerable evidence that the doctrine of deification was taught for quite some time after the Savior’s death, and accepted as orthodox. Some of the most well-known and respected of the early Christian Fathers made statements that were remarkably close to the statements LDS leaders have made. For example:

In the second century, Saint Irenaeus said, “If the Word became a man, it was so men may become gods.” He also posed this question: “Do we cast blame on Him (God) because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as Gods?” At about the same period of time, Saint Clement made this statement: “The Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.” And Saint Justin Martyr agreed, saying that men are “deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest.” Some two centuries later, Athanasius explained that “the Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods. He became man that we might be made divine.” And, finally, Augustine, said, “But He that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. For he has given them power to become the sons of God. If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.”

Even the noted Christian theologian, C.S. Lewis, said much the same thing in his book "Mere Christianity."

“The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said."

Finally, according to The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology, “Deification (Greek theosis) is for Orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, according to the Bible, is made in the image and likeness of God…. It is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become god by grace.”

So, the "Mormons" really didn't come up with this doctrine. We only restored that which had been lost for many, many years. You don't have to believe this. I'm not asking you to, and I don't expect you to. All I ask of you is that stick to telling us about what you believe, and let other people explain their own beliefs. You do nobody any favors by trying to step in with your pathetic attempts to paraphrase and explain Mormon doctrine. You wouldn't like it if I did that to you.

You have wasted a lot of your time here.

You claimed:

but Mormons do not claim that "we come back as God's

That is a claim to knowledge concerning a universal negative. All I had to provide to defeat your statement was a quote from any Mormon claiming that humans can become a God.

I however was more careful with my own claims. I made no such blanket statements. People claiming to be or actually were Christians have made every claim imaginable.

So your original response has been annihilated. However let me see if you brought up anything new here.

1. It seems you suggested that some Christians alluded to our potentially becoming Gods. Since Christians claim all kinds of absurd things your not countering any argument I have ever made.

2. If your claiming the scriptures themselves testify to men becoming actual God's then (I haven't but) I will deny that assertion. Are you claiming such?

3. You also seem to have changed your mind and insist that Mormons took a biblical doctrine about humans becoming God and simply filled in more context. Since that seems schizophrenic I will let you clarify which position you actually hold to before I respond.

I will respond to one of your claims in the meantime. Scriptures calling upon us to be like the father (God), Christ, or to be perfect are goals not destinations. The same book also says all men fall short and that if any man claims to be without sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him. I would give you some links to commentaries but you do not seem to utilize links when given them.

Also, I said that Mormons believed they can become God's, and I said that Hindus believe they come back *** higher or lower life forms. For some reason you said the exact same thing back to me like it was an argument. I do not get it. I also quoted Brigham Young, which you apparently ignored. Does anyone speak for Mormons?

 

[Katzpur]

I was just making a topic joke. I actually went all over it with the exception of where they wear the magic pajamas.

Magic pajamas, huh? I'll have to see if I can get myself some of those. Strangely enough, in 68 years as a Mormon, I've never heard of such a thing.

Apparently I not only have to quote the book, and supply the links, but I see now I must click the link for you as well. I think everything you responded to above came from the same book. Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation. I thought the tenth president of the LDS church was relevant, if not then who is?

If what Joseph Fielding Smith said in his book can be supported by something in any of our Standard Works, it is indeed relevant. If it cannot, then it's merely his opinion.

You have wasted a lot of your time here.

Yeah, based on my past experiences with you, I kind of suspected it would be, but I didn't have anything really important that was pressing on me, so I figured I might as well post a response for the benefit of others who may be following this thread.

You claimed: That is a claim to knowledge concerning a universal negative. All I had to provide to defeat your statement was a quote from any Mormon claiming that humans can become a God.

I claimed what? Would you be so kind as to provide an exact quote of my claim, since what you are claiming I claimed makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I however was more careful with my own claims. I made no such blanket statements. People claiming to be or actually were Christians have made every claim imaginable.

No kidding.

So your original response has been annihilated. However let me see if you brought up anything new here.

Well, that's your opinion. You're entitled to it.

1. It seems you suggested that some Christians alluded to our potentially becoming Gods. Since Christians claim all kinds of absurd things your not countering any argument I have ever made.

2. If your claiming the scriptures themselves testify to men becoming actual God's then (I haven't but) I will deny that assertion. Are you claiming such?

3. You also seem to have changed your mind and insist that Mormons took a biblical doctrine about humans becoming God and simply filled in more context. Since that seems schizophrenic I will let you clarify which position you actually hold to before I respond.

I'm really sorry, Robin, but you really need to work on being able to articulate what you're trying to get across. I honestly can't follow your line of thinking here. Consequently, I'm not even going to try to respond to these three points. I believe my initial response to you made enough sense so that anybody who really wanted to understand Mormon theology would be able to. If you are finding my explanations to be confusing, I'm afraid we'll just have to shelf this discussion and try again some other time.

I will respond to one of your claims in the meantime. Scriptures calling upon us to be like the father (God), Christ, or to be perfect are goals not destinations. The same book also says all men fall short and that if any man claims to be without sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him. I would give you some links to commentaries but you do not seem to utilize links when given them.

I don't know what you mean when you say they are "goals not destinations." I would totally agree that perfection is a goal. I would also agree that all men fall short, and that anyone who claims to be without sin is lying.

Also, I said that Mormons believed they can become God's, and I said that Hindus believe they come back *** higher or lower life forms. For some reason you said the exact same thing back to me like it was an argument. I do not get it.

You're right about that. You don't.

And not only do you not "get it," but you "don't get" the rules of English punctuation and capitalization either. You have no idea how it grates on my nerves to see you write "God's" instead of gods. There should be no capital letter and no apostrophe. "God's" is either a possessive, referring to something that belongs to God, or it is a contraction of "God is." Neither is correct in the context in which you are using the word.

I also quoted Brigham Young, which you apparently ignored.

I ignore nothing that Brigham Young has said that is in line with official Church doctrine. However, on those occasions in which he has said something that is not in line with official Church doctrine, yes, I do ignore it. I'm not sure exactly what quote I ignored, but if you'd like to be more specific, I'll comment on it.

Does anyone speak for Mormons?

Yes. The current Church leadership does. You and others on this forum also apparently give it your best shot, but you don't always get it right.