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

[Neb]

This line of argument assumes that the author of the gospel of John and the letters of John are written by the apostle John. I don't think you can prove that.

Thanks.

Who do you think wrote 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John and the Gospel of John? Is there evidence that someone else, other than John, wrote the epistles and the gospel? Are we just debating the author of the book and the epistles? How about the whole content of the book and the epistles, are we debating this too?

 

[siti]

Well it does better than that, it gives the start of the Message of Muhammad and that the Revelation of the Two Witnesses would last 1260 Years. Now we know that was 1844, but the Day and Hour was still not known. Matthew:24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

What about - Matthew 24:14 "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come" That took a long time....It was not until around 1844 they thought that had been achieved.

Regards Tony

No Tony, it doesn't say any of that - it says 1260 days - equivalent to 3.5 years or 42 months. There is not a single word in the Book of Revelation that suggests anything should have been expected to take any longer than the immediate few years after it was supposedly written. There is not a single passage of scripture in the NT that says anything whatsoever about any time period beginning in the 6th century and ending in the 19th. I can see why Baha'is jump at this whilst rejecting almost all the rest of the NT as unreliably transmitted versions of made up stories, but that position is completely inconsistent and untenable.

 

[siti]

I was talking about the positive effects Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad have had on the world, not the negative effects Judaism, Christianity and Islam have had on the world

Well I'll let your own quote answer this:

That is called cherry-picking.

PS - I love the way you put it in cherry colour

 

[siti]

There are verses that simply make no sense if interpreted literally.

Again you are twisting the point - of course the verses are not meant to be taken literally - they were presented as prophetic visions - but the fulfillments - the actual resurrection (not the prophetic vision of it), the actual fall of mankind from divine grace, the actual outpouring of the holy spirit...these are all accepted by conservative Christians as literal fulfillments, the symbolism is in the writings not the events.

In your other post, I asked about explicit indications in the NT about a far future fulfillment (i.e. centuries and millennia later) you have quoted two verses - one about the preaching of the good news (which I have already answered from the scriptures that clearly show that the NT writers were clearly under the impression that this was at the very least well on the way to fulfillment when they were writing, and in any case gives no indication whatsoever about time) and another which talks explicitly about a period of 3 and a half years. You then go on to cite Daniel - which, in case you had not noticed - is not a New Testament book. And to cap all that off, you start you very next paragraph by suggesting that I do not understand the Bible! And then you ask me why I keep saying you are not answering my questions. Anyway, here for the fourth time of asking is my question again (slightly rephrased so you can just answer yes or no.

Is there a single verse in the entire NT that explicitly indicates that a far future fulfillment of its prophecies was to be expected? Yes or no please Adrian.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

No Tony, it doesn't say any of that - it says 1260 days - equivalent to 3.5 years or 42 months. There is not a single word in the Book of Revelation that suggests anything should have been expected to take any longer than the immediate few years after it was supposedly written. There is not a single passage of scripture in the NT that says anything whatsoever about any time period beginning in the 6th century and ending in the 19th. I can see why Baha'is jump at this whilst rejecting almost all the rest of the NT as unreliably transmitted versions of made up stories, but that position is completely inconsistent and untenable.

That is not so. That we could not understand that it is was there, when we looked, is our shortcommings.

William Miller worked it out before the event, so it was possible.

Remember the words were sealed until the time of the end. It took a very spiritual and detached person to see through what man had added to scripture.

This is not completely inconsistent and untenable, because it happened as per what was recorded in Scripture.

That we choose not to see it that way, will never take away from the event and how it was recorded.

History has shown Jesus and Muhammad triumphant over the same objections offered of old. This is also part of the Return, thus you again have the choice, Negation or Affirmation.

Regards Tony

 

[siti]

History has shown Jesus and Muhammad triumphant over the same objections offered of old.

Yes indeed! This is precisely why I am so fascinated with the Baha'i reformulating of historical and religious traditions...I am now 100% convinced that this - and the "Great Beings" conversation - are opening up windows onto the religious part of the human psyche that helps us to understand how - against all the odds - so many people were so completely taken in by the Christians rewriting Jewish history and the Muslims rewriting both. Obviously we have no way of going back in time to, as you put it,

...see through what man had added to scripture.

and decide what God must really have meant, but we are certainly getting an insight into how that "cherry picking" syncretic process might have been conducted as the early Christians carefully picked over the bones of the crumbling Jewish religious tradition painstakingly selecting which OT restoration prophecies should be included to establish the validity of the Messianic claims they wanted to ascribe to Jesus.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yes indeed! This is precisely why I am so fascinated with the Baha'i reformulating of historical and religious traditions...I am now 100% convinced that this - and the "Great Beings" conversation - are opening up windows onto the religious part of the human psyche that helps us to understand how - against all the odds - so many people were so completely taken in by the Christians rewriting Jewish history and the Muslims rewriting both. Obviously we have no way of going back in time to, as you put it, and decide what God must really have meant, but we are certainly getting an insight into how that "cherry picking" syncretic process might have been conducted as the early Christians carefully picked over the bones of the crumbling Jewish religious tradition painstakingly selecting which OT restoration prophecies should be included to establish the validity of the Messianic claims they wanted to ascribe to Jesus.

Or it is 100% the Truth, as told by Baha'u'llah.

The choice is all ours.

Regards Tony

 

[siti]

Or it is 100% the Truth, as told by Baha'u'llah.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Who do you think wrote 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John and the Gospel of John?

I believe no ones really knows for certain, though many Christains feel certain that it was the apostle John.

Is there evidence that someone else, other than John, wrote the epistles and the gospel?

Yes

1. Background to the Study of John

Are we just debating the author of the book and the epistles?

Of course not.

How about the whole content of the book and the epistles, are we debating this too?

Regardless of debates around the authorship, the epistles and gospels of John are extremely important NT books.

1 John is a testimony to the life and teachinigs of Jesus and the light that God has brought into the world through Him. It also provides a warning against false teachings, including gnosticism.

What point did you want to make about 1 John 1 as it pertains to the resurrection?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Is there a single verse in the entire NT that explicitly indicates that a far future fulfillment of its prophecies was to be expected? Yes or no please Adrian.

No

 

[siti]

No

Thankyou! So there is, in fact, no scripture-based reason to assume that when the NT writers referred to the long-term OT prophecies (such as in Daniel) that they were imagining anything other than a more-or-less immediate, first century fulfillment - is there?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thankyou! So there is, in fact, no scripture-based reason to assume that when the NT writers referred to the long-term OT prophecies (such as in Daniel) that they were imagining anything other than a more-or-less immediate, first century fulfillment - is there?

You confuse explicit from implicit. You are correct in the sense that if we take any verse from the NT in isolation, we can not say for certain that verse implies Jesus will return in the distant future. The verse that most strongly suggests a return in the future is Matthew 24:14 in regards to preaching the gospels to all the nations. However, there are verses in the Olivet discourse that should be taken literally, allegorically, and both so I can not assume its literal just because it suits my worldview. Finding other verses in the NT that refer to the spread of the gospels to all nations as you have done, does provide an opening to preterism as you suggest. That is the nature of ancient scripture though. The humanist, evangelical Christians, Catholics, and Baha'is can each have an exegesis that makes perfect sense to themselves, but doesn't sit well with others. We can sent posts by the hundreds to each other as we have done, and it will help us become more familiar with the texts themselves and what the scholars have to say. However, what ideology we ultimately align with is largely dependant on the conditions of our hearts.

Jesus talked about the pure in heart and spiritually blind. Paul talked about how Christians appeared a stumbling block to the Jews, and fools to the Greeks. I view Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. You perceive that the Christians twisted the meanings of the OT as the Baha'i twist the meaning of the NT in the same manner.

Its all good though. As I've said repeatedly, I'm not here to mock or ridicule anyone's belief or faith. Not the Christians, nor the humanists. I'm simply enjoying a shared exploration of the nature of reality with other thoughtful people, regardless of belief.

 

[siti]

You confuse explicit from implicit.

Not at all - I was simply narrowing the parameters by asking for/about the explicit evidence separately.

I have, as you noted, already listed a number of verses that strongly suggest (implicit evidence) that the NT writers strongly felt that the preaching of the gospel to all the nations was, if not already accomplished, at least well under way even as they were writing.

I have also mentioned that there is a clear overall impression of urgency and immediacy in both the Olivet discourse in particular and the prophetic passages of the NT in general.

The NT writers - including those who recorded the supposed sayings of Jesus himself - were, as far as I can make out, completely convinced that they, themselves, in that time, were among those very people "upon whom the ends of the world are come" and that the OT prophecies they quoted and explicated in Christian terms were "ensamples" written explicitly for the "admonition" of the "generation" of their contemporaries that was not expected to pass from the scene until "all these things" had occurred (1 Corinthians 10:11, Matthew 23:36, Matthew 24:34).

As far as I can tell, whoever wrote the various bits of the NT (at least as we now have it) seem to have intended their readers to understand that the 'prophecies' in the NT were all to be expected to happen in "a little while" (John 16:16).

I cannot see anything in the text itself to suggest otherwise so any far future eschatology seems to me to be a projection we put onto their words from our perspective in time. But like I said earlier - that is precisely what I believe the Christian Bible writers were doing in the 1st century with Jewish prophecy - bringing the OT prophecies centuries out of their time and applying it to a generation far later than the one it was written for. And that, I believe is how they came up with what you now see as a preposterous belief in the literal, bodily resurrection and ascension of Christ. But that this is what they wanted their readers to believe seems very clear to me. To say that this is not what they really meant is to undermine the entire narrative - and to do that pulls the entire NT rug from under the Baha'i claim to spiritual succession from Christianity.

It is fascinating to see it in action though - and I know I've said that before - I don't mean to be rude or dismissive - that just comes naturally. Please forgive me that - but some nuts are harder to crack than others.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Not at all - I was simply narrowing the parameters by asking for/about the explicit evidence separately.

Yes, but then you went on to extrapolate the explicit to include the implicit. I know you know the difference. I know you know the bible well and you're a bright guy. Hyperbole aside, you're clearly enjoying the discussion as you take on us poor deluded Baha'is LOL.

I have, as you noted, already listed a number of verses that strongly suggest (implicit evidence) that the NT writers strongly felt that the preaching of the gospel to all the nations was, if not already accomplished, at least well under way even as they were writing.

It is all implicit (as opposed to explicit) evidence, as I have too. I concede there is a case to be made for all prophecy being fulfilled in the first century as you say. Logic like beauty is in the eye of the beholder and the relative merits and strengths of your arguments are a matter of perception.

I have also mentioned that there is a clear overall impression of urgency and immediacy in both the Olivet discourse in particular and the prophetic passages of the NT in general.

I agree that there was urgency and rightly so. It was literally and metaphorically the end of the world for the Jews as they knew it. That does not negate prophecy in the distant future though (that has a mountain of implicit evidence in support IMHO).

The NT writers - including those who recorded the supposed sayings of Jesus himself - were, as far as I can make out, completely convinced that they, themselves, in that time, were among those very people "upon whom the ends of the world are come" and that the OT prophecies they quoted and explicated in Christian terms were "ensamples" written explicitly for the "admonition" of the "generation" of their contemporaries that was not expected to pass from the scene until "all these things" had occurred (1 Corinthians 10:11, Matthew 23:36, Matthew 24:34).

I agree these verses relate, at least in part, to the apocalypse set to befall the Jews in the first century.

As far as I can tell, whoever wrote the various bits of the NT (at least as we now have it) seem to have intended their readers to understand that the 'prophecies' in the NT were all to be expected to happen in "a little while" (John 16:16).

I suspect the early Christians belief that the return of Christ was imminent spurred them on through the first century of their missionary work. When it became apparent, their expectations were not to going to be fulfilled literally, they adjusted their theology accordingly. I don't have a problem with such a shift but I suspect you will see it as evidence against the Abrahamic God.

I cannot see anything in the text itself to suggest otherwise so any far future eschatology seems to me to be a projection we put onto their words from our perspective in time. But like I said earlier - that is precisely what I believe the Christian Bible writers were doing in the 1st century with Jewish prophecy - bringing the OT prophecies centuries out of their time and applying it to a generation far later than the one it was written for. And that, I believe is how they came up with what you now see as a preposterous belief in the literal, bodily resurrection and ascension of Christ. But that this is what they wanted their readers to believe seems very clear to me. To say that this is not what they really meant is to undermine the entire narrative - and to do that pulls the entire NT rug from under the Baha'i claim to spiritual succession from Christianity.

I have to admit that it does both mystify and fascinate me how the Christians concluded there was a literal resurrection and ascension. I have no doubt that it didn't happen, and so the focus of this thread is to understand it better. Its not clear to me at all that the gospel writer's believed in a physical resurrection, but its not hard to appreciate why most Christians believe that. I think the Baha'is rejecting a literal resurrection in favour of more profound spiritual and allegorical truths, provides a stronger, not weaker foundation.

It is fascinating to see it in action though - and I know I've said that before - I don't mean to be rude or dismissive - that just comes naturally. Please forgive me that - but some nuts are harder to crack than others.

You are correct that the Baha'i approach to the NT is analogous with what the Christian's did with the OT. The claims of our prophet are profound with far reaching implications if true. If false, we will deservedly fade back into obscurity.

 

[Trailblazer]

Fair enough........
I cannot think of pos-effects either.
And because Jesus's teachings have been so differently construed his followers vary from gun-nuts who believe Jesus wanted violence (sell your scrips and buy swords etc) to gentle folks who love. One group of 'Christians' believe that Mecca should be 'glassed' (nuked), and they will justify all from the New Testament.
Amazing.

Well, that is why we needed a “new” Messenger from God to bring “new” teachings that cannot be tampered with and easily misconstrued. The Bible is a Pandora’s Box.

 

[Trailblazer]

My understanding is that in heaven or the next world, your happiness, contentment and joy will far exceed any earthly joy you’ve ever had. So you won’t lose anything except the outward body and forms of this earthly life.

That is my understanding, but I think this will vary, as I do not think everyone is going to experience the same level of joy as others will. However, if we played our cards right, I think it will exceed any earthly joy. In my case, it would not be that difficult to exceed that.

True the Writings say we can’t take our pets with us but how do we know there won’t be something similar in that world? You may possibly have other companions in the next world similar to this one except not physical.?

I do not know where in the Writings it says that animals cease to exist except that one passage in Some Answered Questions.

“The animal spirit is that all-embracing sensory power which is realized through the composition and combination of the elements. When this composition disintegrates, that spirit likewise perishes and becomes non-existent. It may be likened to this lamp: When oil, wick, and flame are brought together and combined, it is lit; and when this combination disintegrates—that is, when the constituent parts are separated from one another—the lamp also is extinguished.” Some Answered Questions

I am no physicist but I can use Google.com. The law of conservation of mass states that mass can neither be created nor be destroyed but can be converted. Extinguished and converted have different meanings. Perhaps that was written before discoveries were made in physics that say that matter can never be destroyed.

I think that Abdu’l-Baha was quoted as saying that if you need your pet it will be there but I could never find the source. Maybe that means that animals will be there (wherever there is) but we will not need them or see them unless we need them. I do not know if you ever read the book entitled Private Dowding wherein the man killed in battle in WWI was communicating to a medium from the spiritual world. In his story his dog came to him. He was a loner and had no family so maybe God knew he needed his dog. Was the dog really there, or was that just something his mind conjured up? Also, in many NDE accounts people see their pets and animal communicators communicate with deceased pets. Of course none of this is definitive but neither is what Abdu’l-Baha said about “extinguished.” Had Baha’u’llah written it I would be inclined to agree, but even then we have the matter of interpretation of the Writings, unless He had made it absolutely clear. Why was this never even addressed in the Holy Bible?

It really is not so much I think I will “need” my cats as the fact that I wonder why God would create animals and allow them to suffer and die as they do, unless they have a future existence in some form. This alone is enough to make me an unbeliever. Of course animals do not have a soul like humans but I would be content to know that animal spirit continues in some form, even if I never saw the animals in the spiritual world. And what about plants? In NDE experiences people see pastoral scenes… Are those just imaginary?

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

So maybe plants and animals take on a heavenly form, made up of elements of that heavenly realm.

Somewhere in the Writings it says that for everything in this world there is a counterpart in the next world. I assume that means living things and not man-made things like houses and cars… My worst nightmare would be if we still needed cars to get around for all of eternity! Heaven to me is a place where cars and highways do not exist and there is no home maintenance… Now I am just being silly. Sorry I took this thread so far off track.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well I'll let your own quote answer this:
PS - I love the way you put it in cherry colour

Why do you consider what I said cherry-picking? What did I pick? I was simply giving some examples of some Prophets who had a positive effect upon the world. It was not an all-inclusive list.

You sure like to “pick” on Baha’is, like cherries off a tree… and now you have one more cherry, and I do not fall off the tree that easily…

 

[siti]

I think the Baha'is rejecting a literal resurrection in favour of more profound spiritual and allegorical truths, provides a stronger, not weaker foundation.

I can appreciate that point of view, but the problem I have with this is that it amounts to a rejection of NT theology not an affirmation of it. That is fine - I have no problem with someone rejecting NT theology in favour of a more modern, perhaps more expansive and inclusive theology that also admits a more up-to-date, more scientifically consistent worldview - but then to simultaneously claim "exact fulfillment" of miraculously-revealed prophecies that are contained within the Biblical expression of the very worldview you have so roundly (and rightly) rejected seems just a tad inconsistent. If the NT writers were so badly mistaken about the resurrection that they supposed had actually happened right in front of their own eyes - on what possible basis can we then claim that they were nevertheless invariably spot on in regard to details of the far distant future?

 

[Trailblazer]

Is there a single verse in the entire NT that explicitly indicates that a far future fulfillment of its prophecies was to be expected? Yes or no please Adrian.

Pardon the interruption, but if you are talking about fulfillment of prophecies for the Return of Christ, nobody but God knows the day or hour....

Matthew 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven,[a] but My Father only.”

These prophecies do not say when but they do say what…

John 10:16 “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.”

John 16:12-13 “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.”

Those are no-brainers for anyone who knows how to interpret the Bible.

 

[siti]

Why do you consider what I said cherry-picking? What did I pick?

You picked the good bits and rejected the bad bits of the religious traditions surrounding Moses, Jesus and Mohammad. If you really want to understand my take on that have a look at my comments in the earlier part of the "Great Beings" thread.

Anyway, I'm not picking on Baha'is - I am investigating Baha'i beliefs - would you prefer I just agree with everything you say or confine myself to commenting uncritically? In that case, you should post in a Baha'i DIR forum rather a debate forum I think.

But don't take it personally, I am probing your belief system and if it seems a bit invasive or undignified sometimes I apologize - but I am learning a lot. Not that I am going to become a Baha'i - I can tell you that for sure - but your religion does have some really positive aspects (as I have acknowledged elsewhere) and, as I have also said, as a relative newcomer to the religious topography of the world, studying it seems to provide a fairly unique insight into how new religions establish their identity and subsume fragments of the earlier traditions that they have grown out of.