Resurrection of Christ - What's the evidence for and against a literal resurrection

[syo]

That's the claim. And that is a problem for the Baha'i symbolic explanation, because that means the appearances become something made up and added to the story. If his body is dead and buried, like Baha'is say, and the resurrection was only a symbolic one, who needs him to appear? He can't appear, he's dead. He can't even appear in spirit, because he says to touch him and see that he is flesh and bone. So did it happen or was it a hoax or only symbolic?

the resurrection isn't symbolic. it was real. he physicaly rose from the dead. at least that's what orthodox believe.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Evidence, what is it? In a court of law, does the court accept eye witness accounts?!

It does. And it's known for not being the best source of evidence and for being problematic. Not only has mistaken identity gotten many innocent people charged guilty, and threatening and bribing jurors and witnesses also works to sway decisions, just yesterday I learned of a child-protection services case were the CPS workers and prosecutors failed to get a child removed from a dangerous situation because they failed to prove to the court that choking someone poses a hazard/danger to their life and well being. So much for eye witness accounts being reliable.

 

[Truthseeker]

Please explain the symbolism in them.

EDIT: You can define symbolism any way you want. It does not have to be This means That.

The tomb represents the death of the spirit of faith. The empty tomb represents faith brought back to life. Similarly, the body of Christ coming back to life means that their faith was now alive. Also it indicates that Jesus had a power that defied death.

 

[Truthseeker]

Why not just a bunch of versions of some alleged event that Christians use to make Jesus into God? Instead of symbolic, why not believe they are completely fictional?

Because I have faith in Christ and Baha'u'llah.

 

[oldbadger]

Great points. I trust Adrian will be addressing them shortl.

What cannot be addressed cannot be faced.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

the resurrection isn't symbolic. it was real. he physically rose from the dead. at least that's what orthodox believe.

I would like to share a post on another forum, from a former Muslim who has started a study of the Bible;

"There is a question you mentioned in your original post " Did either one of them rise from the dead?" and that means you believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead with His physical body?

Recently, I am studying Bible, every night. I REALLY enjoy reading it, and apart from the joy, it gives me food for thought. So there is a part in Bible, I read tonight that CLEARLY states that Jesus did not rose from the dead with His physical body. After I saw it, I wondered how any Christian could thought about it as a physical happening. So I would like to share with you the part I read:

1 Corinthians 15:35-58New International Version (NIV)
The Resurrection Body

35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.

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. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” 55 “Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?”

I, Personally, felt completely satisfied with the answer Bible itself gave me. Maybe sometimes we have to read our own scripture with new eyes, new mind"

So it could be we do need New to see through new eyes and hear with new ears!

Regards Tony

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

I would like to share a post on another forum, from a former Muslim who has started a study of the Bible;

"There is a question you mentioned in your original post " Did either one of them rise from the dead?" and that means you believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead with His physical body?

Recently, I am studying Bible, every night. I REALLY enjoy reading it, and apart from the joy, it gives me food for thought. So there is a part in Bible, I read tonight that CLEARLY states that Jesus did not rose from the dead with His physical body. After I saw it, I wondered how any Christian could thought about it as a physical happening. So I would like to share with you the part I read:

1 Corinthians 15:35-58New International Version (NIV)

The Resurrection Body

35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.

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. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” 55 “Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?”

I, Personally, felt completely satisfied with the answer Bible itself gave me. Maybe sometimes we have to read our own scripture with new eyes, new mind"

So it could be we do need New to see through new eyes and hear with new ears!

Regards Tony

v 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body

'It' is the body. It is changed from a natural form to a spiritual form at the resurrection.

v 51 We will not all sleep but we will all be changed
v 52 the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed
v 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

It is a bodily resurrection but the body will be changed into an imperishable immortal form.
No body will be left behind in the tomb.

This is all in accordance with the presentation of the idea of resurrection in the earliest form of Ethiopic Enoch (1 Enoch). “That was to be a bodily resurrection, and the body was to be subsequently transformed.” Jewish Encyclopedia

In Luke 24:36-43 we see Jesus able to do suddenly appear in a locked room but also still possess a tangible body with the wounds in the hands and feet. He even eats some fish. Not a natural body or he would not be teleporting around. But a body nonetheless.

 

[Dawnofhope]

i believe he was really placed in a tomb and then he really rose from the dead. his disciples took care of the body and they didn't hide it.

Thank you for sharing your belief. I used to believe Jesus literally rose from the dead too. I no longer do.

Do you also believe Jesus ascended into the sky through the stratosphere to reside with His Father in Heaven?

Feel free to share the reasons for your believe. I'm here to have respectful and courteous discussion about this core Christian belief so your perspective is appreciated.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Hi...............

Either way the foundations of the Bahai Faith collapse.
If Jesus died and was not resurrected then the Abrahamic 'line' to Bahai is broken.
If, (as some believe), Jesus lived and was got clear away, then the Abrahamic 'line' to Bahai is broken.
If, (as some others believe) Jesus is mythical, the Abrahamic line to Bahai is broken.

It takes a great deal of twisted manipulation and edition to claim that Christianity and Islam lead to the Babi and Bahai Faiths when they don't believe in the foundations of the Christian Faith.
It's a bit like some kind of spiritual pyramid sell, imo.

This thread is about whether or not Jesus literally rose from the dead.

Whether or not the Baha'i Faith fulfils prophecies in regards to Islam or Christianity is an entirely different topic.

If its a topic that interests you, why not set up another thread and I'm sure the Baha'is will happily respond.

NB: To be clear Baha'is accept the divine origins of the entire Bible. We do not 'twist it' or remove books or passages because it does not suit or worldview.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

v 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body

'It' is the body. It is changed from a natural form to a spiritual form at the resurrection.

v 51 We will not all sleep but we will all be changed
v 52 the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed
v 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

It is a bodily resurrection but the body will be changed into an imperishable immortal form.
No body will be left behind in the tomb.

This is all in accordance with the presentation of the idea of resurrection in the earliest form of Ethiopic Enoch (1 Enoch). “That was to be a bodily resurrection, and the body was to be subsequently transformed.” Jewish Encyclopedia

In Luke 24:36-43 we see Jesus able to do suddenly appear in a locked room but also still possess a tangible body with the wounds in the hands and feet. He even eats some fish. Not a natural body or he would not be teleporting around. But a body nonetheless.

John in Verse 6:63 clearly tells us it will be the Christ returned and not the Flesh of Jesus, "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you--they are full of the Spirit and life."

Thus the Word, which is Christ, is what returns. To do this, God gives it to another born into this world that is born of the Holy Spirit and not the Human Spirit.

This is How 'Christ' is the First and will be the Last. The body of Jesus was not this.

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

But does it work as the "body" of Christ that got resurrected? So the disciples are the body of Christ and appear to the disciples and say "Hey, look at us. We were feeling down for three days because Jesus is dead. He's still dead, but we are his body so he's alive. He's symbolically risen from the dead in us."

One third of the world's population considering themselves Christian is ample evidence of the body of the Christ that rose from the dead. Scripture confirms it:

1) Members of the Body of Christ are joined to Christ in salvation (Ephesians 4:15-16).

2) Members of the Body of Christ follow Christ as their Head (Ephesians 1:22-23).

3) Members of the Body of Christ are the physical representation of Christ in this world. The Church is the organism through which Christ manifests His life to the world today.

4) Members of the Body of Christ are indwelt by the Holy Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9).

5) Members of the Body of Christ possess a diversity of gifts suited to particular functions (1 Corinthians 12:4-31). “The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ” (verse 12).

6) Members of the Body of Christ share a common bond with all other Christians, regardless of background, race, or ministry. “There should be no division in the body, but . . . its parts should have equal concern for each other” (1 Corinthians 12:25).

7) Members of the Body of Christ are secure in their salvation (John 10:28-30). For a Christian to lose his salvation, God would have to perform an “amputation” on the Body of Christ!

8) Members of the Body of Christ partake of Christ’s death and resurrection (Colossians 2:12).

9) Members of the Body of Christ share Christ’s inheritance (Romans 8:17).

10) Members of the Body of Christ receive the gift of Christ’s righteousness (Romans 5:17).

How is the church the Body of Christ?

Then the idiot gospel writers, years later, mistakenly took the resurrection story as literal, as having been Jesus and not the disciples being the symbolic body of Christ. That version works for the Baha'is, but it makes Christians look pretty dumb.

Baha'i have enormous respect for the Apostles of Christ and the Gospels.

Christ teaches that we should remove the log from our own eye before removing the speck from our brothers, so it would be disingenuous to consider anyone an idiot, let alone an entire faith community.

How do you feel about the gospel writers and Christians?

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

John in Verse 6:63 clearly tells us it will be the Christ returned and not the Flesh of Jesus, "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you--they are full of the Spirit and life."

Thus the Word, which is Christ, is what returns. To do this, God gives it to another born into this world that is born of the Holy Spirit and not the Human Spirit.

This is How 'Christ' is the First and will be the Last. The body of Jesus was not this.

Regards Tony

Whose body did Jesus use to eat those fish in Luke?

The issue is whether a body is left behind in the grave after the resurrection. It is clear from Paul's exposition and from Luke's narrative that no body is left behind, The natural body is changed into a spiritual body. The mortal and perishable is clothed in the immortal and the imperishable. Not a swap but a change. John 6:62-63 fits right in with that.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Is there any one that doesn't believe most, if not all, religious stories aren't at least embellished if not total fabrications? Accept true believers of course. Can a Jesus that is not virgin born and resurrected from the dead impress anybody enough to save them? I doubt it. But the Jesus of the gospels can heal the sick, raise the dead and walk on water. Now there's a super hero for you. All you got to do is believe it's all true and not doubt.

Now if we wanted are religion to be practical, then yeah, probably the Baha'i Faith makes more sense. But then why couldn't the Baha'i leaders just say Christianity is make believe. Instead, they try and say that it's true, just not literally.

The Baha'i position in regards to Christianity:

As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that its Divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the Divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed
(Shoghi Effendi: The Promised Day is Come, pp. 113-114)

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Whose body did Jesus use to eat those fish in Luke?

The issue is whether a body is left behind in the grave after the resurrection. It is clear from Paul's exposition and from Luke's narrative that no body is left behind, The natural body is changed into a spiritual body. The mortal and perishable is clothed in the immortal and the imperishable. Not a swap but a change. John 6:62-63 fits right in with that.

These passages are veiled in deep Spiritual Meaning and have much more to offer than the outward story we think is being told. That is my way of looking at this subject. I personally think science would be more in tune with this position.

This topic has been debated for many years, I have found this comparison chart showing all the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus a good link, that gives references from both sides of the debate - It shows the complexity of understanding this subject as a material happening;

Compare Biblical Accounts of the Resurrection

Regards Tony

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

These passages are veiled in deep Spiritual Meaning and have much more to offer than the outward story we think is being told. That is my way of looking at this subject. I personally think science would be more in tune with this position.

This topic has been debated for many years, I have found this comparison chart showing all the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus a good link, that gives references from both sides of the debate - It shows the complexity of understanding this subject as a material happening;

Compare Biblical Accounts of the Resurrection

Regards Tony

The 'complexity' is enormously simplified if one sees the five accounts as independently developed stories each having its own purpose.

The 1 Corinthians 15 version is presented in the context of demonstrating that resurrection from the dead is possible. 500+ eyewitnesses to a risen Jesus are claimed including all the important personages that would be known to the Corinthians. None of the Gospels claim such a large number of witnesses. The 500 simultaneous witnesses claim is especially suspect. This is hyperbole to support Paul’s case.

The original ending of Mark, Mark 16:1-8, has no one see the risen Jesus. The added-on section of Mark 16:9-20 is simply a pastiche of references to other later Gospels. One wonders why Mark should present it this way. The Gospel of Mark contains numerous pericopes that have the feel of earlier traditions about Jesus, woven into a story. The descriptions of the social and religious environment in Judea 40 years or so before Mark wrote are fully credible, supporting the idea of early traditions.

The mysterious original ending of Mark makes sense if this were also an intact early tradition. It also makes sense if viewed as an actual event. The women go to the tomb to complete the burial rituals that could not be performed because the Sabbath was about to start. They meet someone who says that Jesus rose from the dead and went to Galilee. End of story. Grave robbery by disciples wanting to start a legend and a shill to tell the story is a very tempting possibility.

Matthew recognized the credibility problem in Mark and bolstered the story to cover it up. Guards are added to deal with the grave robbery theory, which appears to have been widespread when Matthew wrote. The young man becomes a dramatic angel from heaven, obviously no shill. Jesus puts in an appearance, addressing that concern. And the disciples go to Galilee and see Jesus again.

In his usual contrarian manner, Luke changes Matthew’s narrative in several ways. The guards, the stone rolling angel, Jesus appearing to the women and giving the exact same message as the angel are perhaps a little too obvious as band-aids applied to Mark. Luke has Jesus appear first not to the women but to a couple of disciples leaving town, but turn back to Jerusalem. The next appearance is to disciples hiding out in Jerusalem. Instead of the disciples going to Galilee, they are told by Jesus to stay in Jerusalem, which they do. Matthew is mostly Galilee centered. Luke is mostly Jerusalem centered. Even most of the ministry of Jesus is presented by Luke as happening in the journey to Jerusalem.

John has only Mary Magdalene go to the tomb. Since John has the burial rituals performed before the burial, there is no real reason to do so. Mary sees Jesus there. Like Luke, John has Jesus appear in the midst of the frightened disciples. This is an opportunity to emphasize the need for faith. John was written well after the life of Jesus and hanging on to faith was understandably an issue.

But wait. In the add-on chapter 21 of John (which mentions the author of the Gospel in the third person and seems to say he is dead) the disciples go to Galilee, apparently to resume their fishing trade, and happen to meet Jesus there. Both Jerusalem and Galilee.

A simple case of the body being stolen and someone saying Jesus rose from the dead, as related by Mark, could be the beginning of the whole story. The several writers built on this in accordance with their own missions. Nevertheless the beginning of it all could be a physical event, although not the one commonly envsiioned.

 

[oldbadger]

This thread is about whether or not Jesus literally rose from the dead.

Just so, and I have exchanged posts with members about this subject, on this thread.

Whether or not the Baha'i Faith fulfils prophecies in regards to Islam or Christianity is an entirely different topic.

But Bahai has been quoted in connection to the subject matter quite a lot on this thread!

If its a topic that interests you, why not set up another thread and I'm sure the Baha'is will happily respond.

But the Bahai beliefs about the thread title have been mentioned quite a lot here, and the OP, yourself, are a Bahai.?

NB: To be clear Baha'is accept the divine origins of the entire Bible.

What does that mean exactly?
Divine Origins...?
You do not accept the Christian Faith as written in the bible, and clearly reject the several and repeated accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, so what your 'Divine Origins' are is a massive cherry-picking feast.

And you chose which Christian 'expert' to push forward into this debate, in Bart Erhman. Over the years members on RF have debated heatedly over the bible accounts of Jesus and Christianity, members often selecting an expert opinion which supported their viewpoint and pushing the name forward, only to be contended with by another member selecting their favourite (differing) expert's account to push back.
I remember reading about Dr Erhman's opinions about the mass sighting of Jesus rising into the air, where Erhman described this mass experience as a mass-hysteria, and I knew then that Doctor Erhman didn't understand the difference beween, say, mass-panic (well documented) and mass-sightings-delusion (I await to hear of any) and knew then that he fumbles about in the darkness with regard to this subject.
But you've chosen your 'expert' to suit what I absolutely believe to be your agenda.

We do not 'twist it' or remove books or passages because it does not suit or worldview.

You have removed the Trinity and the Resurrection from the Christian Faith!
Which part of 'remove' don't you underatand?
That's probably 95%+ of all Christian Creeds, and yet you suggest that of course you accept Christianity.
You clearly do not seem to accept Christianity as it is, whilst writing how much you support it.

That's some kind of insidious 'Spiritual Camourflage' without which there would be no Christian springboard to lift Christians upwards and onwards to ...... Bahai!

This 'We do...... but we don't!' approach is typical of Bahai double-think, and since I have perceived considerable amounts of it in the last year it does tend to catch my attention now.

 

[Dawnofhope]

But the Bahai beliefs about the thread title have been mentioned quite a lot here, and the OP, yourself, are a Bahai.?

This thread is about the evidence for and against the resurrection of Christ. I've avoided bringing the Baha'i Faith into the discussion unless asked.

What does that mean exactly?
Divine Origins...?
You do not accept the Christian Faith as written in the bible, and clearly reject the several and repeated accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, so what your 'Divine Origins' are is a massive cherry-picking feast.

By Divine origins, I refer to the God of Abraham. I suppose with 66 books in the OT and 27 in the NT, with each one being like a delicious cherry metaphorically, there is quite a feast.

And you chose which Christian 'expert' to push forward into this debate, in Bart Erhman. Over the years members on RF have debated heatedly over the bible accounts of Jesus and Christianity, members often selecting an expert opinion which supported their viewpoint and pushing the name forward, only to be contended with by another member selecting their favourite (differing) expert's account to push back.
I remember reading about Dr Erhman's opinions about the mass sighting of Jesus rising into the air, where Erhman described this mass experience as a mass-hysteria, and I knew then that Doctor Erhman didn't understand the difference beween, say, mass-panic (well documented) and mass-sightings-delusion (I await to hear of any) and knew then that he fumbles about in the darkness with regard to this subject.
But you've chosen your 'expert' to suit what I absolutely believe to be your agenda.

Bart Ehrman, like any scholar has his critics. I chose him because he has taken the time to thoroughly consider the topic of the resurrection. As he says in his opening address:

I want to say at the outset something similar to what he said at the beginning of his speech. I used to believe absolutely everything that Bill just presented. He and I went to the same evangelical Christian college, Wheaton, where these things are taught. Even before that I went to a yet more conservative school, Moody Bible Institute, where “Bible” is our middle name. We were taught these things there even more avidly. I used to believe them with my whole heart and soul. I used to preach them and try to convince others that they were true. But then I began studying these matters, not simply accepting what my teachers had said, but looking at them deeply myself. I learned Greek and started studying the New Testament in the original Greek language. I learned Hebrew to read the Old Testament. I learned Latin, Syriac, and Coptic to be able to study the New Testament manuscripts and the non-canonical traditions of Jesus in their original languages. I immersed myself in the world of the first century, reading non-Christian Jewish and pagan texts from the Roman Empire and before, and I tried to master everything written by a Christian from the first three hundred years of the church. I became a historian of antiquity, and for twenty-five years now I have done my research in this area night and day. I’m not a philosopher like Bill; I’m a historian dedicated to finding the historical truth. After years of studying, I finally came to the conclusion that everything I had previously thought about the historical evidence of the resurrection was absolutely wrong.

So he used to believe in the resurrection and has clearly devoted enormous thought and attention to biblical scholarship.

You have removed the Trinity and the Resurrection from the Christian Faith!
Which part of 'remove' don't you underatand?
That's probably 95%+ of all Christian Creeds, and yet you suggest that of course you accept Christianity.
You clearly do not seem to accept Christianity as it is, whilst writing how much you support it.

The Baha'is are entitled to their exegesis of the bible as any Christian denomination or ideology is. You have a particular take on Christainity that few Christians would agree on. You don't believe in the God of Abraham to begin with and then write off most of the NT books. I accept that.

There is no Christainity 'as it is', because it consists of a multitude of sects and denomiations that are irreconcilably opposed to each other.

That's some kind of insidious 'Spiritual Camourflage' without which there would be no Christian springboard to lift Christians upwards and onwards to ...... Bahai!

This 'We do...... but we don't!' approach is typical of Bahai double-think, and since I have perceived considerable amounts of it in the last year it does tend to catch my attention now.

OK, so you have an aversion to the Baha'i Faith as with Christianity and Islam. What's new?

This thread is an opportunity to consider the resurrection of Christ. If we keep our posts relevant and respectful, there's shouldn't be a problem.

 

[oldbadger]

OK, so you have an aversion to the Baha'i Faith as with Christianity and Islam. What's new?

Nope............
I have no aversion to Christianity, it's just a lack of faith. Why don't you read my posts to Grandiseur and others?

And I do not debate strongly against the Islamic faith.

But I'm very careful now when I read Bahai claims.

 

[syo]

Do you also believe Jesus ascended into the sky through the stratosphere to reside with His Father in Heaven?

yes, i do i believe in everything that is in the bible and how orthodox explain the bible.

 

[CG Didymus]

Because I have faith in Christ and Baha'u'llah.

That's the whole point of this Argument. If the Baha'is are right the Christians have put their faith in a false belief. If the Christians are right Baha'is have put their faith in a false prophet. Both Christians and Baha'is have faith, but they aren't necessarily right.