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

[Trailblazer]

I wanted to respond to this sequence but I'm afraid my comments would have taken us way off topic so I have posted an old blog post that relates here: Mapping Reality

I hope you'll have time to look it up.

Thanks... I just took a peek and saved the link in my list of posts left to answer... I got behind today tending to some business matters and I am still playing catch up... There is just too much interesting stuff on this forum, and too many interesting people.

 

[oldbadger]

I wanted to respond to this sequence but I'm afraid my comments would have taken us way off topic so I have posted an old blog post that relates here: Mapping Reality

I hope you'll have time to look it up.

I looked it up.... read it all:-

I can see no logical reason to assume that God would have created two identical copies of the same reality. For God, it seems to me, the map must be the territory. And that conclusion has profound implications for understanding the nature of God
"If God exists, then God is identical to the Universe."

So sweetly put, so exactly shown. I forgot to tick it 'winner', and will go back to do that.

I too have always been fascinated with maps and models, and have also always believed that God is all....... not 'must be', no 'equations', no 'higher level of demonstration', because all that is needed is touch, smell, sight, hearing and feeling to just 'know that it is right'.

Although irrelevant, as I read your post I was constantly reminded of the model villages that I have wandered through......... the one shown, at Boughton-on-the-water, England has been there for over 6 decades to my knowledge, and maybe even a century. Within the model is a model of the modelSuch places fascinate me.[/QUOTE]

 

[Trailblazer]

...the one shown, at Boughton-on-the-water, England has been there for over 6 decades to my knowledge, and maybe even a century. Within the model is a model of the modelSuch places fascinate me.

Me too... I always loved travel and seeing new places... Maybe, if I ever retire.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Finally! But I knew we'd get there in the end!

O ye of litte faith lol!

OK - for the sake of argument (and notwithstanding the far more obvious interpretation that these were the confused writings of enthusiastic believers who genuinely thought they were writing down the factual details of a literal historical event) I can go with that...

Thats very generous of you to concede the possibility that the gospel writers may have been trying to record the words of Christ, rather than express their own confused musings. I have more faith than you that the hand of God was in this whole process and through the gospel writers, God got it right. However that's a statement of faith rather than fact.

Perhaps, but they are certainly not identical are they?

They are not identical and its fine IMHO.

Hang on a minute. That is an enormous leap. The relative consistency between accounts of the Olivet discourse could simply mean that they all copied from the same source, whereas the more divergent accounts (such as the resurrection) were derived from more diverse sources - couldn't it? There is no more reason to assume that it is a factually reliable record just because they are all saying (more or less) the same thing.

We both accept there was almost certainly collobaration between the synoptic gospel writers. In the case of the three synoptic gospel accounts of the Olivet discourse it is not the lack of contradictions that make it relaible. What makes it reliable is having the same basic message, each with its slightly different verses. We agree, at least in part, they concern the destruction of the temple and the plight of the Jewish people. We also agree there is much symbolic language that captures an apocalypse. Your read that it only concerns the first century. My reading is that it concerns both events of the first century and a far off period when Christ returns. The important aspect for reliability is that we gain the same message from each of the three versions. The fact that we interpret the verses differently is more of function of the style of writing. Its not meant to be literal so can be interpreted in different ways.

Right - and if the "end times" happened to be just a few years later (than the supposed/pretended time of writing) then that's what it was talking about - there is absolutely nothing within the Olivet discourse that explicitly demands a far future fulfillment - a point that you have already explicitly conceded.

I agree that none of the verses can explicitly be taken to mean the far off future but implicitly they can and should be based on the Bible as a whole and world history. I accept there is a case for preterism. Our different understandings of these verses are based on our different theological/ideological worldviews. In my world God is real, Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, the apostles are inspired by God's unerring spirit as are the gospel writers. However that's my faith rather than a scientically and historically validated set of facts.

That is the point of the whole thread. To be able to differentiate science from religion, fact from faith, and what 'is' compared with what 'could be'.

Not if its intent was symbolic and allegorical - the Kingdom of the "Prince of Peace" established by the resurrection and ascension of Christ and signaled by the holy spirit anointing of the Christian Church at Pentecost...and the culmination when "the peace of Christ" began to rule in the heart of each believer (Colossians 3:15) and they began to enjoy the "the liberty of the glory of the children of God" (Romans 8:21) under the kind ministrations of their mother "the Jerusalem above" (Galatians 4:26).

In the context of the whole NT, I don't see how you can possibly have a literal fulfillment of Isaiah 11 AND an allegorical resurrection - if anything the other way round is far more consistent. And if Isaiah 11 is symbolic (and certainly lions and lambs lying down together would appear symbolic) then there is absolutely nothing in it that demands a far future literal fulfillment either.

Isaiah 11 seems clearly symbolic in the sense that the different animals represent nations, peoples, even religions that would outwardly have animosity to one another yet they are able to live in peace. I can't see how there will be a change in the nature of animals to the extent that their predatory instincts are quelled. An honest apraisal of the last two thousand years tells us that hasn't been fulfilled and Christianity has had its hands in many wars. The twentieth century was arguably the most violent on record. Yet I see humanity moving towards peace as a necessity, if nothing else to avoid unimaginable horrors.

I do not see how any of that relates to why the resurrection of Jesus must be literal though.

Egg zackly! And why, if Luke 21:27-28 are so clearly and undeniably apocalyptic and symbolic, should we insist that the "times of the Gentiles" in Luke 21:24 (just 3 verses earlier in the same account of the same speech by the same person recorded by the same author) refers to a literal time period that ended precisely in 1844???!!! There you have my argument in a nutshell.

We can not insist its true but offer it as an explanation of prophecy. Its far more important to live life according to our highest values. We should avoid forcing our beliefs on others whether it be atheism, a literal resurrection, or even Baha'i interpretation of prophecy.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

You are making my argument for me.

I agree with the connections between Daniel 7:13-14, Luke 21:27-28, and Acts of the Apostles 1:9-11. The language is rich in symbolism though, particularly in the prophecies of Daniel, but also the Olivet discourse. The author of Acts and Luke being one and the same, it is no surprise similar imagery is used as the undeniably apocalyptic Daniel. So why insist that it should be taken literally?

Just how literally Luke’s mostly Gentile audience would have taken it is a matter of conjecture. The three-level world idea would be familiar to them from Greek myth. The abode of the gods is above the mundane world, nominally on Mount Olympus. The underworld is the abode of the dead, which has multiple discrete compartments. The image of Jesus ascending to heaven where he originally came from (as per Paul and later John) would be a natural one. Even today, people say ‘gone up to heaven’ or ‘down to hell’ as figures of speech even though they do not believe that to be literal truth. Did Luke’s readers consider the Ascension something to take literally or just a figure of speech clothed in imagery? I suspect some of each.

I agree that Copernicus and Galileo did not deal a fatal blow to Christian's theological world, any more than Darwin had. However in both instances they are wounds that have never fully healed. The Christian Church, the ultimate authority, had been shown irrefutable proof they had been completely wrong from the early days of Christ. It matters not how they got there. It left a huge dent in the seemingly unchallengeable authority of the church, and another crisis far more damaging lurked around the corner.

Martin Luther – Wikipedia

I doubt if anyone had the audacity to challenge the churches understanding of the resurrection even a few hundred years ago. To challenge a literally resurrected Christ along with a literal ascension would be deemed heresy. Yet it is the truth that sets us free, not clinging to outdated, man made dogmas.
John 8:32

Luther had mailed his Ninety Theses (or nailed them to the church door as legend claims) in 1517. Calvin and Zwingli were not far behind. De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium was not published until 1543, although Copernicus had distributed copies to friends years earlier. Galileo first expressed support for the Copernican system in 1597 but was not ordered to stop by the church until 1616. The church was already ‘under siege’ from the Protestant Reformation before astronomical considerations came into play.

Physical cosmology does not appear to be have been a noticeable concern until Aquinas employed Aristotle’s cosmology in a theological manner. After that, any ‘real world’ challenges would be viewed with suspicion. It is important to note that once the counter-arguments shifted to the use of scripture, that being more easily understood than Aristotle/Aquinas, the Jesuit College was free to favor the Tychonian model. In that model all the planets revolved around the sun but the sun revolved around the earth. At the time this was more compatible with observation than the crazy nested epicycles needed to explain retrograde planetary motion. The Aristotelian system was implicitly and silently abandoned. Never underestimate the ability of Catholic theologians to tap dance.

There was a serious challenge to Christian theology at that time - Giordano Bruno. But his many worlds ideas were probably the least objectionable, since it conflicted with abstruse theology rather than more straightforward and critical articles of faith. It was his loud and widespread denial of the divinity of Christ, the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth and other more familiar doctrines that really did him in, IMO.

I'm pleased you agree the events recorded didn't happen literally. But they did happen spiritually. With the crucifixion of Christ an earthquake was set off within Judiasm and the Roman empire, the spiritually dead really did arise from their graves, and the temple curtain really was torn as a premonition of what was to happen. Why is it so hard to believe? Why do we have ears that do not hear and eyes that do not see? Through Christ, the crippled can walk the spiritual path of God and the spiritual starved and thirsty have their needs met. Such stories were entirely consistent with the spirit of Christ and the spiritual forces that were released upon the earth with his death.

I agree with everything here. The problem is when we insist that it is literally true and our faith depends on miracles, rather than the spiritual reality of Christ Himself.
Matthew 12:38-44

The accounts of the resurrection found in the Gospels differ from each other in very significant ways. They cannot all be literally true. Mark, the first one, is believable. They go visit the tomb to finish the burial rituals. The tomb is empty and some stranger says Jesus rose from the dead and went to Galilee. The End. No Elvis sightings. As I have said earlier, Matthew’s account was written to make up for Marks deficiencies. Luke adds his version, very different from Matthew, a recurring habit of Luke. John incorporates ideas from Luke and Matthew and puts his own spin on things.

As I said, they cannot all be literally true. I see Mark as probably presenting the original (non)event, which is likely the origin of the resurrection story. The empty tomb motif carried forward in subsequent Gospels shows a belief in in a physical resurrection. Whatever one feels connected to spiritually is fine by me. Nonetheless I see the earliest beliefs to be in a physical bodily resurrection.

 

[columbus]

Nonetheless I see the earliest beliefs to be in a physical bodily resurrection.

Why?
Maybe the Original Christians were mostly aware that the Legends were legends, and only the most gullible took them to be literally True.
Given how little remains from the era, and how undocumented, maybe the 12 Apostles believed in Jesus' Resurrection the way I believe in Santa Claus.

Which I do, only not in a literal way.
Tom

 

[Neb]

I do not believe heaven is literally located within any physical realm beyond the stratophere, yet that is what Christians believed for centuries. Therefore it made perfect sense that when Jesus ascended into heaven and the disciples were looking up that it was the physical heaven or sky where Jesus was going.

Acts of the Apostles 1:9-11

For centuries Christians believed the earth to be the centre of the universe. Its an irrefutable truth that it isn't and most Christians accept that.

The scriptural basis for a geocentric cosmology – E-World

The problem with the resurrection narrative as told in the bible is that it contradicts science in much the same way as a geocentric model of the earth did. For the resurrection narrative to be literally true, then medieval cosmology needs to be literally true as well.

All you have is nothing but hearsay. 1st century said this, 2nd century said this, with nothing to back up with.

Your first excuse is this

For me, the gospel of John's author is uncertain, but would most likely be a second or third generation

Then I asked you: If I provide evidence, based on the bible, as a proof of my claim then you should provide a counter evidence that my claim is not valid. Since you’re the one challenging my claim then it becomes your responsibility to provide counter-evidence otherwise you’re just making an assumption that my claim is not valid.

And now you used science as your NEW vehicle to discredit the apostles’ gospel so could justify your belief as the only religion where the manifestation of God continually exist. Do you see where your religion is taking you? To the level of atheism.

If you believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob then you should believe that nothing is impossible with God.

 

[Neb]

I was referring to the first century AD in regards to Christianity. How many non-Christian historians affirmed a literal resurrection? How about the events outlined in Matthew 27:51-54? Were any of these events recorded in history?

Why mention the Baha'i faith other than to deflect attention from a question you seem unable to answer? This discussion is about the evidence supporting or refuting a literal resurrection and has little to do with my religion.

What record are you looking for? This is the record, the gospel, on which you don’t any written proof to invalidate it but your imaginary historians. Can you validate your historians? With what? Because they say so? Against what? The gospel, right? You have this Q&A in a box against resurrection and when it runs out you start all over again from the beginning.

 

[Neb]

Once again you are off the topic. To be clear, Baha'is believe God has revealed Himself to man through the OT prophets, apostles and Jesus. We believe in the same bible both OT and NT. We do not believe God's revelation through the Bible was the last revelation though. This is huge topic and the arguments for or against the resurrection do not depend on whether Islam or the Baha'i Faith are from God.

The motive of the question really is begging for a question, why a member of Baha’i Faith is questioning or challenging the resurrection of the Lord Jesus with science, historians, and a bunch of hearsays from 1st and 2nd century? The word we are looking for, again for the 3rd or 4th time, is, “MANIFESTED” from the Greek word “PHANEROO”, to make visible, clear, manifest, known, that is contrary to gnosticism belief that Christ did not exist at all, therefore, there is no crucifixion, burial, and resurrection.

Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jn 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.

I know you guys would do anything to disprove these verses. God became flesh. God manifested in the flesh. It’s contrary to your belief and just like atheism, you would use hearsays, historians, and science so you could twist these verses to support your theology.

Now, are you sure this thread is not about Baha’i Faith?

Baha’i Faith believes in progressive revelation by means of the so-called manifestation of God, this in contrast to the Bible as the last revelation of God to mankind. The danger of progressive revelation is anything can be said without any proof at all and while they are challenging the apostles’ gospel, that could hinder this type of Gnosticism, they themselves kept on inventing fake revelation known as the manifestation of God through their own prophets. One or any member cannot question the veracity of what they are teaching because of this progressive revelation from God. This is nothing but an oppression of the mind of the ignorant. If you mix any religion with human rules then it becomes a form of slavery.

 

[Maranguape]

About the so-called resurrection of Jesus.

IMHO, literal resurrection which in other words would be bodily resurrection, could not have happened to Jesus because he was a Jew and, according to his gospel which was the Tanach, once dead, one will never return from Sheol aka the grave. Hence, the Psalmist called it "The eternal home of the dead." (Psalm 49:12,20) JPS. King David also confirmed that thought when his child passed away; hence, once dead, he would never return; rather David would go to him but he would never return from the grave. (II Samuel 12:23) JPS.

 

[Neb]

We can agree that a large majority of scientists reject the possibility of a literal resurrection. It contradicts science, and even accounting for an omnipotent, All-Powerful God that we both believe in, the resurrection narrative makes no sense. Therefore, can we find another of understanding the gospels? Bart Ehrman, a Christian, certainly has. I wonder if a growing number of Christians will too.

You kept on appealing to Bart Ehrman’s, an apostate. I thought he said that the text of the New Testament has been established to 99% accuracy.

You would appeal to anything or to anyone as long as it contradicts the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. I don’t blame you for that, and just like Ehrman, was a Christian, was an agnostic, and now an atheist and I won’t be surprised if one day you would declare yourself as an atheist too although you are pretty much practicing it now. I appeal to the Bible, the inerrant word of God.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Why?
Maybe the Original Christians were mostly aware that the Legends were legends, and only the most gullible took them to be literally True.
Given how little remains from the era, and how undocumented, maybe the 12 Apostles believed in Jesus' Resurrection the way I believe in Santa Claus.

Which I do, only not in a literal way.
Tom

Good to see you Tom. Christ in Spirit is our firm unshakeable foundation and your reply tied into my thoughts this morning.

This morning in prayer, this OP popped into mind, funny how we get distracted from prayer at times.

As a Baha'i, our Love for Christ is unshakeable, we will practice turn the other cheek and then came to mind a Prophecy yet to fully unfold in the Baha'i Writings, it is this quote;

"The world is in travail, and its agitation waxeth day by day. Its face is turned towards waywardness and unbelief. Such shall be its plight, that to disclose it now would not be meet and seemly. Its perversity will long continue. And when the appointed hour is come, there shall suddenly appear that which shall cause the limbs of mankind to quake. Then, and only then, will the Divine Standard be unfurled, and the Nightingale of Paradise warble its melody."

Then I thought the event that would shake most of mankinds limbs in a Spiritual sense, would be if they confirmed they had found the body of Jesus the Christ.

With current interpretation the Christian and Muslim world would have Faith shaken to the core. Our Faith in Christ would remain firm and strong.

God doeth as He Willeth.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You would appeal to anything or to anyone as long as it contradicts the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. I

A spiritual understanding of Christ resurrection is unshakeable Faith. It is unshakeable as science can not disagree with this foundation but only confirm it to be so.

When we bring flesh into the argument, Christ say it amounts to not a thing.

Regards Tony

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Why?
Maybe the Original Christians were mostly aware that the Legends were legends, and only the most gullible took them to be literally True.

Given how little remains from the era, and how undocumented, maybe the 12 Apostles believed in Jesus' Resurrection the way I believe in Santa Claus.

Which I do, only not in a literal way.

Tom

Mark, the first Gospel written, contains a number of episodes that sound like early traditions about Jesus. One example is the squabble in Mark 7:1-13 about new ‘man-made’ laws versus the written Torah, a very Jewish sort of debate and not likely to be the result of Pauline influence. The original ending of Mark (Mark 16:1-8) sounds like an early tradition. The tomb is found empty and someone says Jesus rose from the dead. Jesus puts in no personal appearances. The absence of a body, implying a physical bodily resurrection, is the central theme of this episode. An invented story would have lots of follow-up details about the risen Jesus walking and talking, as the other Gospels do. It sounds very much like Mark’s account could very well be what really happened – body missing, someone says he got up and went to Galilee.

The other Gospels preserve the empty tomb motif but have the risen Jesus demonstrate his physical nature. In Luke 24:36:42, Jesus stresses that he is not spirit. 39 “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” “42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. 43 And he took it, and did eat before them. John 20:19-29 has a similar theme along with John 21:12-13. A corporeal Jesus is clearly intended.

In 1 Corinthians 15:12-23, Paul stresses the importance of the resurrection of Jesus as supporting the promise of a future resurrection of the faithful. In 1 Corinthians 15:35-54, Paul addresses the natural reticence about a dead body, maybe long decayed or riddled with disease, can be given life again. The body is changed as it is raised, changed into a spiritual body that is immortal and incorruptible. The language Paul uses make it clear that the body that is buried becomes the spiritual body. For example, no body is left behind in the tomb. Tat is, the tomb is empty.

It is difficult to imagine that the Apostles, or most of the followers of Jesus for that matter, thinking of a resurrection as being other than bodily. These were for the most part not sophisticated thinkers and would probably consider a ‘spiritual’ resurrection as an obvious con job. But a physical bodily resurrection … now that is convincing. Even those who might consider a spiritual resurrection, leaving the body behind, as feasible might not be convinced of the validity of the promise of a future resurrection. After all, Jesus came from heaven, a very unique ircumstance. Even Paul said so. Going back to heaven after his earthly body died Is no surprise. But how does that convince anyone of the promise of their personal resurrection and reward?

For the original belief to be other than a physical bodily resurrection leaving an empty tomb would make no sense in terms of the meaning of the resurrection as promise of a future resurrection. And it appears to run counter to the earliest traditions and writings.

 

[columbus]

For the original belief to be other than a physical bodily resurrection leaving an empty tomb would make no sense in terms of the meaning of the resurrection as promise of a future resurrection. And it appears to run counter to the earliest traditions and writings.

Check your privilege, dude.
What is impossible about the Original Followers of Jesus understanding that the Message isn't a literal story? That what was important about Jesus the Christ was more like the legend of Santa Claus and less like a textbook about elves?

I, personally, believe in Jesus. The Word, not the story. The story is about as credible as a castle at the North Pole. But the personification of a solid ethical code ( solid for the day) I have no problem with.

Well, except that Christians don't believe in it. They generally believe in the older ethical code. The OT. The one Jesus didn't believe in, exactly. The one He contradicted when it suited Him.


I revere Jesus for the same reason I revere Moses and MLK jr.
They all looked at the old ethical code, improved upon it, and then stood by their decisions.
Even when it was tough to do it.
Tom

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Check your privilege, dude.
What is impossible about the Original Followers of Jesus understanding that the Message isn't a literal story? That what was important about Jesus the Christ was more like the legend of Santa Claus and less like a textbook about elves?

I, personally, believe in Jesus. The Word, not the story. The story is about as credible as a castle at the North Pole. But the personification of a solid ethical code ( solid for the day) I have no problem with.

Well, except that Christians don't believe in it. They generally believe in the older ethical code. The OT. The one Jesus didn't believe in, exactly. The one He contradicted when it suited Him.


I revere Jesus for the same reason I revere Moses and MLK jr.
They all looked at the old ethical code, improved upon it, and then stood by their decisions.
Even when it was tough to do it.
Tom

As can be seen in Paul, a major energizing element in early Christianity was the promise of a future resurrection and eternal llfe for the righteous. This was already an idea in the popular imagination as seen in Apocryphal writings of that era. I gave reasons why a bodily resurrection would make more sense to the audiences of that day than a 'spiritual' resurrection. (And what exactly is that anyway?) Would you care to respond to those reasons? Or give reasons why it was originally thought to be a spiritual resurrection?

Also you seem to think I am claiming the stories are literal fact, that Jesus really did rise from the dead. All I am claiming is that this was the predominant belief in Christian communities of that time.. For me the most likely origin is a missing (stolen?) body and a tall tale attached to it. This was then linked by Paul or some predecessor to the already familiar notion of resurrection.

 

[columbus]

As can be seen in Paul,

How can anything be seen in Paul, except what Paul believed?
Let me refresh your memory. Paul never met Jesus. It's right there in the Bible.
Tom

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

How can anything be seen in Paul, except what Paul believed?
Let me refresh your memory. Paul never met Jesus. It's right there in the Bible.
Tom

We can see from what Paul had to explain and what he only needed to mention what others already knew about concerning the story of Jesus. .

BTW what is in the Bible, if not necessarily in reality, is that Paul did meet Jesus in visions.

Do you have any response to the arguments I presented in Post #494?

 

[columbus]

We can see from what Paul had to explain and what he only needed to mention what others already knew about concerning the story of Jesus. .

What?
Paul could make up anything, and by the time 4th century Christians were making up The Bible there wouldn't be any body to disagree.
Or they'd be executed, the way Jesus was.

BTW what is in the Bible, if not necessarily in reality, is that Paul did meet Jesus in visions.

I know people who met Gandalf.
Sort of.
Do you believe everything that anybody tells you?
Tom

 

[Dawnofhope]

You kept on appealing to Bart Ehrman’s, an apostate.

Why is Bart Ehrman an apostate? I understood that he was a faithful believer in Christ.

I thought he said that the text of the New Testament has been established to 99% accuracy.

I have no problem with the accuracy and inerrancy of the gospels.

Through Islamic tradition, many Muslim's believe that the Christian's do not have the original gospels and that it has been corrupted. Baha'u'llah refutes this belief as vain and false:

We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also? What would be left to that people to cling to from the setting of the day-star of Jesus until the rise of the sun of the Muḥammadan Dispensation? What law could be their stay and guide? How could such people be made the victims of the avenging wrath of God, the omnipotent Avenger? How could they be afflicted with the scourge of chastisement by the heavenly King? Above all, how could the flow of the grace of the All-Bountiful be stayed? How could the ocean of His tender mercies be stilled? We take refuge with God, from that which His creatures have fancied about Him! Exalted is He above their comprehension!

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Pages 81-93

I quote Baha'u'llah so you can better understand a religion that you clearly have little knowledge of and misunderstand.

You would appeal to anything or to anyone as long as it contradicts the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. I don’t blame you for that, and just like Ehrman, was a Christian, was an agnostic, and now an atheist and I won’t be surprised if one day you would declare yourself as an atheist too although you are pretty much practicing it now. I appeal to the Bible, the inerrant word of God.

To further clarify, I've been a Baha'i for nearly 30 years. Beforehand I was attending a Baptist Church. I grew up Christian. Baha'is, like Christians, believe in the God of Abraham, the Bible, and Jesus the Son of God who came in the flesh. We do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus literally. Baha'is are not atheists.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 16-17

I explain this as you seem to be making many assumptions about my motivation and the Baha'i faith in your posts.

Unlike, Bart Ehrman, I'm not a liberal Christian. However, I'm interested in what he has to say, as he has clearly spent many years studying the gospels, Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, and history.

I'm on RF to learn about comparative religion, history, and science. I've learned to accept people as they are and see value in everyone. As soon as I imagine my religion is the only religion that is worthwhile, and other faith adherents, history, and science have little to offer, then I'm wasting my time on RF and will simply become frustrated when people don't accept or believe as I do.